>/        .  A     . 


sc3 


4» 


,^-- 


--- 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://archive.org/details/letterOOanna 


LETTERS  ON  PSALMODY: 


A    REVIEW     OF     THE 


LEADING  ARGUMENTS  FOR  THE  EXCLUSIVE  USE 


BOOK  OF  PSALMS. 


BY 


WILLIAM '  AXXAX, 


AUTHOR   OF   "DIFFICULTIES   OF   ARMINTAX   METHODISM,"   "  GOTTZSCHALC'S   LETTERS 
TO   PROF.  YOUNG,"  ETC. 


v.ey  (in  heaven)  sung  a  new  song,  saying  with  a  loud  voice,  "Worthy 
is  To*  Lamu  that  was  slain."     Rev.  5 :  9-12. 


T  II I  L  A  D  E  L  P  II I  A  : 

WILLIAM   S.  &   ALFRED  MARTIEN, 

No.   600   0HB8TNXTT   STREET. 
1859. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1859,  by 
WILLIAM   ANNAX, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Western 
District  of  Pennsylvania. 

STEEBOTYPKD    BY    W.   S.     HAVEN,     PITTSBUBGH,    Pa. 


CONTENTS. 

LETTER     I . 

Page 
factory  remarks — Origin  of  this  work — Extract  from  a 
letter  of  an  inquiring  friend — Unhappy  exaggerations  of 

our  views  and  usages — Drs.  Watts:  and  Latta  misrepresent- 
ed— l>r.  Preasly  formerly  on  the  Presbyterian  platform — 
His  views  at  that  time  of  the  "  traditions  of  the  elders" — 
Plan  of  the  discussion  pursued  in  this  treatise.        -  -     J  3 

LETTER     II. 

Question  at  issue:  "Is  a  fair  and  full  version  of  the  whole 
book  of  Psalms  of  Divine  appointment," — Rouse's  versi- 
fication not  "the  pure  word  of  God"  —  not  a  version  at 
all,  but  in  many  parts  "a  paraphrase"  or  mixture  of  in- 
i  truth  with  human  composition — This  proved  by 
extended  quotations.       -------22 

LETTER     III. 

Discussion  of  previous  Letter  continued  —  Rouse's  versifica- 
tion a  patchwork  of  human  and  Divine  sentiments  and 
phraseology  —  Not  M  the  word  of  God  "  in  the  same  sense 
in  which  ttie  prose  translation  of  our  Bible  is  so  —  Further 
extracts  and  extended  parallels  to  prove  this.  -     31 

LETTER     IV. 

The  book  of  Psalms  never  designed  to  be  the  only  perpetual 
and  unchangeable  Psalmody  of  the  Church  —  Not  so  re- 
gard                        cburch  of  Scotland,  martyrs,  reform- 
ind  other  holy  men — The  exclusive  doctrine  a  modern 
v  —  Not  practicall;              .  even  by  the  stri< 
of  our  opposing  brethren  —  Omission  of  Psalm  72  :  20  — 
I  of  the  inspired  titles  excluded  from  Rouse  —  These 
pr<  v                   part  of  the  Inspired  text,  by  Dr.  Alexander, 
me  and  others — A  glance  at  the  Presbyterian  doctrine 
of  Psalm 33 

(iii) 


IV  CONTEXTS. 

LETTER     V. 

Pagb 
Rouse  an  explanatory  "paraphrase,"  not  a  version  or  trans- 
lation—  Not  "as  literal  as  the  laws  of  versification  will 
allow"  —  A  glance  at  the  history  of  Scottish  Psalmody 
prior  to  the  publication  of  Rouse  —  "  Sternhold  and  Hop- 
kins" a  loose  paraphrase,  and  having  many  "gospel 
turns,"  after  the  manner  of  Dr.  Watts — Acts  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  authorizing 
Rouse  call  it  a  "paraphrase"  twenty  times,  but  never  a 
version  —  The  real  question:  "Shall  we  sing  '  Rouse's 
paraphrase  '  or  Watts'  paraphrase?"  —  The  idea  of  the  Di- 
vine and  exclusive  authority  of  "a  correct  and  faithful 
version "  purely  a  modern  invention.       -         -         -         -     53 

LETTER    VI. 

Sources  whence  the  church  must  derive  her  songs  of  praise — 
"  All  Scripture  of  use  to  direct  us  "  in  praise  as  weli  as  "in 
prayer" — Our  brethren  hold  to  the  "Psalms  exclusively  ;" 
all  else  they  view  as  "corruption  of  Divine  worship" — 
Scottish  churches  almost  without  exception,  use  "other 
songs" — Examples  of  "the  Free  and  Established  churches," 
"  United  Presbyterian  church,"  &c. — The  exclusive  doc- 
trine not  countenanced  by  the  examples  of  the  inspired 
men  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  Isaiah,  Hezekiah,  &c.     68 

LETTER    VII. 

Question  of  "the  Divine  appointment"  of  the  book  of  Psalms 
continued — Examination  of  2  Chron.  29  :  30 — Contains  no 
such  Divine  warrant — The  common  arguments  from  "the 
peculiar  matter,"  "titles,"  and  "original  use"  of  the 
Psalms  shown  to  be  fallacious  —  The  title  and  matter  of 
"Solomon's  Song"  presumptive  proof  that  it  should  be 
used  for  purposes  of  praise  -        -        -        -         -75 

LETTER    VIII. 

Discussion  of  previous  Letter  continued  —  "A  Divine  war- 
rant "  for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  Book  of  Psalms,  not  found 
in  Paul's  "psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,"  Coloss. 
3  :  16— Septuagint  use  of  these  titles— The  fact  that  the 
Psalms  were  originally  given  to  be  sung  by  the  Jews,  does 
not  prove  them  to  be  intended  as  an  unchangeable,  per- 
petual and  exclusive  system  of  praise  —  Various  unsound 
arguments  exposed.         .----.-87 


CONTENT.-.  V 

LETTER    IX. 

Tags 
«»A  it  at  way" — "Whole  word  of  God  of  use  to 

direct  as'1  in  praise — Act  of  our  Genera]  Assembly— 

-  of  Ralph  Erskine — Sentiments  of  "  the  North  British 
Review"  in  commendation  of  Dr.  Watts —  He  fiewed  his 
versificati<  d  a-  "a  paraphrase;"  not  always  a  striol  ?er- 
sion  "r  translation  —  Many  of  his  Psalms  rrect 

in    some   parts  more   so — 
I  )i\  Watts'  manner  in  "  Bternhold  and  Hop- 
kins '* — The  Psalms  need  explanation — Testimony  of  Pro- 
fessor  Patterson.    --------  101 

LETTER     X. 

Attempts  to  create  prejudice  against  our  usages  by  references 
to  certain  expressions  of  Dr.  Watts  —  Presbyterians  not 
responsible  t«  r  certain  of  his  reasons  in  regard  to  the 
proper  method  of  using  the  Psalms  —  Dr.  Watts  greatly 
misf  .  —  His    high    valuation    of    the    book    of 

Psalms — Objections  examined  :    u  Watts  wrote  better  than 
David,"  "  Presbyterian   Psalmody  not  the  word  of  (i 
"tends  to  weaken  the  claims  of  inspiration,"  "those  who 
use  Rouse  sertainly  sing  the  truth,"  "dare  not  sing  'hu- 
man composition, ,  "  &c.  -        -        -        -        -        -119 

LETTER     XI. 

B,  or  "  the  other  songs  of  Scripture  " — Example  of  the 

Scottish   churches  against   the  exclusive  principle,  in  the 

proportion  of  two  thousand  eight  hundred  to  thirty — Action 

of  the  early  fathers  of  the  Associate   Reformed  ehnrcfa — 

Dr.  M'Master's   sentiments   in  favor  of  hymns  —  Present 

view-  of  Drs.  Kerr  and  Preasly  —  Glance  at  the  results  — 

trge  part  of  Dr.  Watts'  hymns  are  fair  paraphrases  of 

portions  of  the  inspired  word  of  God,  and  no  more  uhu- 

n"  than  much  of  "Rouse's  paraphrase" — 

»f  the  remainder. 133 

LETTER     XII. 
D  the  early  church — Glance  at  Ephes.  5  :  19, 
and  I  16  —  Authority  of  Ralph  Erskine  in   : 

of  o  —  Usage  of  the  primitive 

chur  i  :    »«B  ok  Der- 

ating 
i  word,"  r'hymns  lead  to  alto 
•    the   inspire  1   rec  i    st" 

-  1 17 
1* 


CONTENTS. 

LETTER     XIII. 

God  has  given  ns  no  system  of  Psalmody  for  exclusive  use — 
Five  further  arguments  to  prove  this  point — Fruits  of  the 
exclusive  system  :  Suspension  of  ministers,  elders  and 
church  members  —  Argument  from  analogy  :  Prayer  and 
praise,  both  of  human  composition,  so  mingled  in  the 
Psalms  and  in  all  direct  worship  of  God  as  to  be  insepara- 
ble —  Strange  inconsistencies  and  jarring  opinions  about 
the  real  nature  of  "inspired  Psalmody" — Views  of  Dr. 
Cooper,  the  "Preacher,"  &c. — Gross  errors  in  Rouse.      -  166 

LETTER    XIV. 

Misrepresentations  of  Dr.  Watts  exposed — Further  proof  of 
the  use  of  "other  than  the  Psalms"  in  the  primitive 
church  —  Admitted  by  Dr.  M'Master;  proved  by  Merle 
D'Aubigne,  and  "the  North  British  Preview " — Letter  of 
Pliny — Testimony  of  Eusebius — Hymns  condemned  by  the 
Council  of  Laodicea,  which  also  forbid  any  to  sing  but  the 
choir — Case  of  the  heretic  Paul  of  Samosata  —  Truths  es- 
tablished by  that  case.  ----.-  186 

APPENDIX. 
Review  of  "The  True  Psalmody." 206 


Several  years  ago  it  was  suggested  to  the  author,  by  one  of 
our  most  energetic  and  useful  ministers,  an  honored  pastor  in  the 
Presbyterian  church,  to  undertake  "the  preparation  of  a  small 
popular  work  on  Psalmody."  This  request  was  enforced  by  the 
kindest  considerations  of  a  personal  nature,  and  the  brother  was 
pleased  to  add  :  **  we  need  a  popular  treatise  *  *  *  to  meet  the 
public  demand  on  this  subject."  Many  circumstances  conspired 
to  forbid  compliance  with  ibis  suggestion  until  a  recent  period. 
The  result  is  now  with  great  diffidence  submitted  to  the  Christian 
public. 

The  providential  circumstances  which  have  seemed  to  demand 
some  further  defense  of  the  cherished  usages  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  relation  to  the  public  and  private  singing  of  the  praises 
of  God,  are  fully  stated  in  the  progress  of  this  discussion,  and  espe- 
cially in  the  Introductory  Letter.  If  our  system  of  Psalmody  be 
such  as  is  described  in  the  quotations  made  from  the  writings  of 
the  brethren  whom  we  oppose,  then  the  sooner  it  is  abandoned  the 
better ;  since  it  must  be,  as  they  are  pleased  to  allege,  "a  corrup- 
tion of  Divine  worship  "  of  a  very  offensive  and  dangerous  sort. 
But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  clearly  demonstrable  that  these 
brethren  have  misapprehended,  and  therefore,  greatly  misrepre- 
sented the  views  and  usages  of  our  church  ;  if,  moreover,  their 
confident  and  peculiar  claims  to  the  exclusive  use  of  an  "inspired 
Psalmody "  can  be  shown  to  be  altogether  without  founda- 
tion ;  a  superstructure  without  a  basis  either  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  Church  History  or  fact;  then  it  becomes  an  obvious 
duty  to  present  the  evidence  which  clearly  establishes  these 
positions.     This  has  been  attempted  in  the  following  Letters. 

Kbim  at  the  OlttMt,  the  slightest  intentional   disrespect 
:  1  the  Psalmody  in  ns<  these  brethren,  by  the  em- 

ployment in  this  work  of  the  phraseology,  "Rouse's  versitica- 

(vii) 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

tion,"  " Rouse's  paraphrase,"  &c.  We  are  told,  indeed,  "that 
to  call  the  Divine  songs  in  this  version,  '  Rouse's  Psalms,'  is  to 
evidence  gross  ignorance  or  something  worse."*  Yet  Neal,  the 
distinguished  historian  of  the  Puritans,  employs  the  phrase, 
"Rouse's  Psalms  in  metre."f  And  what  is  much  more  to  the 
point,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  — 1644- 
1649 — in  their  formal  acts  authorizing  that  versification,  employ 
not  less  than  twenty  times  the  phrase  "Rouse's  paraphrase  of 
the  Psalms,"  and  similar  terms.  In  such  excellent  company,  we 
cannot  be  justly  chargeable  with  intentional  contempt  of  the 
Psalmody  of  these  brethren,  though  we  use  the  expressions  re- 
ferred to.  We  admit  that  the  Scottish  General  Assembly  revised 
and  amended  Rouse's  work ;  but  probably  did  not  alter  it  to  as 
great  an  extent  as  Dr.  Watts1  "paraphrase"  has  been  changed 
from  the  original  of  Dr.  W.  Yet  this  does  not  prevent  these 
brethren  from  using  the  epithet  "  Watts'  Psalms,"  though  in 
strictness  of  speech  they  are  not  so. 

In  the  numerous  quotations  in  the  following  Letters  from  lead- 
ing works  of  these  brethren,  such  as  "  M' Master's  Apology," 
"Pressly  on  Psalmody,"  "  Testimony  of  the  United  Presbyterian 
Church,"  &c.  it  has  been  the  constant  aim  of  the  author  to  let  • 
them  speak  for  themselves ;  as  it  was  his  earnest  wish  to  meet 
their  arguments  in  their  own  chosen  forms.  In  reference,  how- 
ever, to  a  number  of  remarkable  extracts  from  "The  United 
Presbyterian,"  Cincinnati,  it  is  only  an  act  of  justice  to  say  that 
the  editors  of  that  paper,  viz.  the  late  Dr.  Claybaugh,  and  Rev. 
James  Prestley,  now  of  Pittsburgh,  were  not  personally  respon- 
sible. The  extracts  referred  to,  are  chiefly  from  communications 
over  the  signature  of  "Pastor."  How  far  the  editors  were  pre- 
pared to  indorse  the  views  of  "  Pastor."  we  can  only  conjecture  ; 
though  one  or  more  editions  of  his  articles  in  pamphlet  form 
were  printed  for  wider  circulation. 

The  zeal  of  these  brethren  for  their  favorite  Psalmody  does 
not  seem  to  flag.     Since  the  organization  of  "  the  United  Presby- 

*  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  178. 

f  History  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  2,  p.  42.  Francis  Rouse  was  a  lay  member  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines,  in  1043. 


PREFACE.  IX 

terian  church,"  about  twelve  months  ago,  they  have  issued  a 
4i  Testimony  "  agaiust  the  supposed  errors  of  other  denominations, 
not  overlooking  this  subject.  Over  20,000  copies  of  "the  Testi- 
mony,'' if  we  are  rightly  informed,  have  already  been  put  in  circu- 
lation. In  addition,  a  new  work  directed  more  especially  against 
''the  corruption"  of  singing  hymns,  has  within  a  few  months 
been  published  in  Philadelphia,  and  circulated  in  the  West.  A 
venerable  Professor,  too,  has  been  employing  the  pulpit  at  home 
and  abroad,  in  the  same  cause,  warning  the  people  against  the 
great  inconsistency,  and,  if  his  theory  be  the  true  one,  the  immi- 
nent peril  of  those  who  mingle  in  devotional  meetings  which  em- 
ploy other  than  "the  inspired  Psalmody."  To  obviate  in  some 
measure  these  varied  efforts  to  perpetuate  what  the  author  is  con- 
strained to  view  as  mischievous  error,  and  to  contribute  his  mite 
to  remove  a  needless  source  of  division  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  is 
the  object  of  this  treatise. 

Having  submitted  his  manuscript  to  several  honored  brethren 
in  the  ministry,  the  author  has  great  pleasure  in  presenting  to  the 
public  the  appended  testimonials : 

Rev.  W.  Anus  : 

Dear  Brother  : — The  undersigned  have  perused  with  great 
pleasure,  the  Letters  on  Psalmody  you  were  pleased  to  put  in  their 
hands,  and  are  happy  to  express  their  approbation  of  them.  The  prin- 
cipal arguments  of  those  who  contend  for  the  exclusive  use  of  u  Rouse's 
version  of  the  Psalms  "  in  the  worship  of  God,  are  fairly  stated  and 
completely  refuted;  and  whilst  you  discuss  your  theme  with  candor 
and  vigor,  we  are  happy  to  observe  it  is  in  an  eminently  Christian 
temper. 

Although  there  are  already  several  excellent  treatises  on  this  subject, 
your  letters  fill  a  gap  in  this  controversy,  as  you  appear  to  us  to  meet 
the  arguments  of  those  from  whom  we  differ  at  a  number  of  points 
v/hich  others  have  not  touched. 

A  clear,  brief  and  courteous  discussion  of  this  whole  subject,  such  as 
you  have  here  furnished,  is,  in  our  judgment,  much  needed  at  this  time ; 
and  the  publication  of  what  you  have  written,  we  are  persuaded, 
through  the  Diviue  blessing,  would  do  much  to  correct  erroneous  opin- 
ions, and  to  increase  the  attachment  of  our  people  to  a  Psalmody  which 


X  PREFACE. 

embraces  the  New  Testament  as  well  as  the  Old,  and  speaks  of  Calvary 
as  well  as  of  Zion. 

We  hope  you  will  consent  to  give  these  Letters  to  the  public,  and  trust 
they  may  have  an  extensive  circulation,  and  that  their  publication  may 
result  in  the  edification  of  God's  people  and  the  glory  of  his  name. 
Yours,  fraternally, 

W.  D.  HOWARD, 
W.  M.  PAXTON. 
Allegheny  City,  March  11th,  1859. 

Rev.  W.  Annan: 

Dear  Brother : — Having  with  much  pleasure  perused  your 
"  Letters  on  Psalmody/'  I  very  cordially  concur  in  the  expressions  of 
the  foregoing  letter  from  the  pastors  of  the  First  and  Second  churches 
of  this  city. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

A.  0.  PATTERSON. 
Pittsburgh,  May  13th,  1859. 

The  writer  does  not  deem  it  necessary  to  occupy  his  pages  with 
further  testimonials.  He  will  only  add,  that  having  read  some 
of  the  most  important  parts  of  his  work  to  the  learned  and 
honored  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Western  Seminary,  Dr. 
Plumer  after  "  examining  the  plan  of  the  whole  discission." 
addressed  to  the  author  a  very  kind  note,  from  which  the  follow- 
ing is  an  extract: 

44  The  result  is,  that  I  have  no  doubt  your  work  is  such  as  is 
called  for  by  the  exigency  of  our  times.  I  therefore  cordially 
commend  it  to  the  perusal  of  4  Zion's  friends  and  mine.,  I  have 
great  confidence  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Howard,  Rev.  Win.  M.  Pax- 
ton  and  Rev.  Dr.  Patterson,  have  given  a  fair  and  just  view  of 
the  whole  work.*'  It  may  be  proper  to  add,  that  Dr.  Plumer 
having  at  that  time  only  partially  recovered  from  a  long  and 
painful  illness,  and  his  official  duties  in  the  Seminary  having 
greatly  accumulated,  was  unable,  though  desirous,  to  peruse  the 
whole  discussion. 

In  concluding  this  Preface,  we  may  be  permitted  to  add  a  few 
words  for  the  prayerful  consideration  of  the  brethren  who  dissent 
from  our  views.     Agreeing  aa  we  do  in  the  great  fundamentals  of 


PREFACE.  XI 

the  C:\lvinistie  faith  and  of  Christian  morals,  let  us  inquire 
seriously  an  1  earnestly,  whether  we  are  not  also  substantially 
one  in  the  ordinance  of  praise.  In  theory  we  differ,  but  in  prac- 
tice the  disagreement  ceases  to  be  a  matter  of  principle.  Just 
as  every  pious  Arminian  when  on  his  knees,  becomes  a  Calvinist; 
so  do  these  brethren  habitually  forsake  the  exclusive  theory  and 
practice  in  part  on  the  principle  which  we  adopt.  So  at  least  it 
seems  to  us.  We  appeal  to  the  ensuing  argument  to  prove  that 
they  worship  God  to  a  large  extent,  in  the  use  of  "human  com- 
position." 

As  to  the  injurious  and  even  fatal  consequences  flowing  from 
these  needless  divisions,  especially  in  the  sparse  settlements  of 
our  country,  they  are  only  too  obvious  and  deplorable.  How  often 
does  it  occur,  that  two  church  edifices  must  be  built  in  a  neigh- 
borhood where  not  one  can  be  half  filled  with  worshipers  —  two 
ministers  must  labor  where  not  one  can  be  half  supported,  &c. 
Hence  for  more  than  half  the  year  silent  Sabbaths  —  while 
heresy  and  delusion  of  every  shade  are  spreading  their  soul- 
destroying  influences  into  every  nook  and  corner  of  the  land. 
Thus  in  numerous  instances  are  the  professed  friends  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  found  working  into  the  hands  of  the  great  adversary  of 
souls. 

With  these  remarks  we  commend  the  work  to  the  blessing  of 

44  the  Father  of  lights  and  of  wisdom,  from  whom  cometh  down 

every  good  and  perfect  gift,"  with  the  earnest  prayer  that  it  may 

be  made  the  humble  instrument  of  promoting  the  union  of  Chris- 

und  the  salvation  of  souls. 

Pittsburgh,  May,  1859. 


LETTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS  —  ORIGIN    OF    THE    WORK — EXTRACT    FROM   A 

B     FROM     AX    INQUIRING   FRIEND  —  unhaffy    exaggeration 

01    OITR   fDIWI — OUR    usages    misrepresented —  NOTICE  OF    DRS. 

I    \TTA —  DR.   PRESSI.Y   FORMERLY  ON  THE    PRR8I VTERIAN 

PLATFORM HIS    VIEWS    OF    "  TRADITIONS  OF     THE    ELDERS" PLAN 

OF    TIIE     DISCUSSION     PURSUED     IN     THIS     TREATISE. 

My  Dear  Sir: — I  received  in  due  season  your  very 
acceptable  communication,  and  return  you  my  grateful 
acknowledgments  for  the  many  kind  expressions  it  con- 
tains. It  is  true,  as  you  intimate,  that  under  the  force 
of  circumstances  beyond  my  control,  ray  attention  has 
been  at  different  times  directed  to  the  subject  which  has 
occasioned  your  letter.  Nor  do  I  consider  myself  at 
liberty  to  disregard  suggestions  which  have  had  an  origin 
such  as  that  to  which  you  refer.  That  the  Christian 
public,  before  which  these  Letters  will  probably  appear, 
may  understand  these  allusions,  I  take  the  liberty  of 
making  some  extracts  from  your  letter,  as  follows  : 

"During  a  recent  visit  among  distant  relatives,  there 
was  placed  in  my  hands,  and  earnestly  recommended  to 
my  perusal,  a  copy  of  a  work  entitled  'An  Apology  for 
the  Book  of  Psalms.'  In  turning  over  its  pages  I  con- 
fess the  impressions  made  upon  my  mind  were  anything 
but  pleasant,  and  I  must  add,  by  no  means  favorable  to 
the  Presbyterian  church. 

"  I  was  born  of  parents,  who,  as  you  are  aware,  were 
of  the  old  Scottish  stock,  and  my  excellent  father  was 
for  many  years  a  minister  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
chur ch.  I  had  been  accustomed  from  early  youth,  to 
what  is  called  'the  old  Psalmody/  both  in  public  and 
worship,  and  have  many  of  its  stanzas  still  famil- 
iar to  my  memory.  But  when,  as  I  grew  up,  I  exper 
2  (xiii) 


14  BETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

those  deep  religious  impressions,  which,  as  I  trust,  were 
the  evidence  of  the  'effectual  call'  of  God's  Spirit, 
and  when  I  united  with  a  church  under  the  care  of  the 
General  Assembly,  it  was  certainly  without  the  remotest 
suspicion  that  I  thereby  renounced,  even  by  implication, 
any  of  l  the  great  and  precious'  principles  of  Divine  truth, 
in  which  I  had  been  so  carefully  trained  by  my  honored 
parents. 

"  Judge  then  of  my  painful  surprise,  when  there  was 
handed  to  me  a  work  whose  very  title  indicates  that  a  most 
precious  portion  of  God's  sacred  word  had  been  seriously 
assailed  and  its  Divine  inspiration  bitterly  impugned  by  the 
very  branch  of  the  church  with  which  I  had  cast  in  my  lot. 
That  for  this  reason,  the  author  referred  to  had  felt  it  to 
be  incumbent  upon  him  to  enter  the  controversial  arena 
in  defense  of  the  book  of  Psalms — very  much  as  some 
of  the  early  fathers  wrote  '  apologies '  for  Christianity, 
which  were  designed  to  obviate  and  rebuke  the  malignant 
assaults  of  Jews  and  Pagans  against  the  rising  power 
and  influence  of  the  religion  of  Christ ! 

"  On  looking  through  the  volume,  I  found  the  General 
Assembly  of  our  church  charged  with  ( the  entire  rejection 
of  the  inspired  book  of  Psalms  from  the  church's  Psal- 
mody, and  the  substitution  of  others  of  human  device  in 
their  place  ' — and  several  authors  belonging  to  the  Pres- 
byterian body  are  professedly  quoted  as  employing  l  ar- 
guments most  popular  and  frequently  used '  *  *  '  repre- 
senting tho.se  Divine  compositions  (the  Psalms  of  David) 
as  Christless,'  and  of  course,  i almost,  if  not  altogether 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel, '  pp.  51,  67,  69. 
Again,  the  author  charges  '  that  most  numerous  and  in- 
fluential body  of  professors  (the  Presbyterian  church) 
with  abandoning  the  songs  of  inspiration  and  practically 
declariDg  them  unfit  for  Christian  lips,'  p.  85.  And  he 
solemnly  testifies  i  against  those  who  have  entered  into 
these  views.' 

u  Such,  Rev.  Sir,  are  a  few  specimens  of  the  spirit  and 
substance  of   the  loook  —  imposing,  as    the  author  inti- 


INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS.  1  ."> 

matt-,  a  neccmify  upon  him  to  step  forward  to  shield  a 
most  precious  part  of  revealed  truth  from  the  '  l>itter 
libels  '  and  the  l  anhallowed  suggestions  uttered  against 
it.'  And  in  endeavoring  to  trace  these  evils  to  their 
BOOroe,  he  without  hesitation  ascribes  them  'to  the  prin- 
ciples of  Infidelity  which  had  extended  to  every  depart- 
ment both  of  Church  and  State/* 

"  Baying  only  recently  commenced  my  preparatory 
studies  for  the  ministry,  and  never  been  placed  in  cir- 
cumstances where  it  became  necessary  to  examine  with 
inueh  care  the  Psalmody  question,  you,  Rev.  Sir,  can 
readily  conceive  with  what  impressions  I  perused  such 
paragraphs  as  the  foregoing.  Could  it  be  possible  there 
i  the  slightest  foundation  for  allegations  such  as  these  ? 
Certainly  from  some  considerable  acquaintance  with  the 
ministry  and  membership  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  I 
had  never  conceived  the  smallest  suspicion  of  such  a 
state  of  feeling  toward  the  productions  of  'the  sweet 
Psalmist  of  Israel;'  but  on  the  contrary  had  always  nut 
with  expressions  of  the  most  profound  veneration  and 
r  that  delightful  manual  of  devotion,  especially 
as  a  component  part  of  the  '  holy  oracles.'  And  in 
rd  to  my  own  experience,  from  the  earliest  dawn  of 
religion  in  my  soul,  I  had  been  in  the  habit  of  resorting 
to  that  precious  book,  the  Psalms,  as  a  most  abundant 
fountain  of  light,  consolation  and  refreshment  for  all 
classes  of  pilgrims  to  the  heavenly  land.  Moreover, 
this  I  knew  to  be  a  common  experience  in  the  Prcsby- 
11  church.  Still,  as  these  grave  charges  were  made 
by  in-  n  venerable  for  years  and  respected  for  their  talents, 
the  only  alternative  left  me  was  to  express  my  conviction 
l)f  an  utter  mistake  as  to  matter  of  fact,  or  to  remain  en- 
tirely silent  in  regard  to  statements  which  I  was  not  pre- 
refute." 

ragraphs  sufficiently  define  the  circumstances 
which   produced   the   letter   of  my   correspondent.      His 
experience  is  by  no  means   singular.      In  the  same  letter 
*  The  latest  edition  was  publi.-V-l  in  1  W  2, 


16  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

he  mentions  the  case  of  a  Presbyterian  lady,  who  had 
never  made  herself  acquainted  with  the  merits  of  the 
Psalmody  question — who,  having  placed  in  her  hands  a 
copy  of  the  same  work  ("Apology,  &c")  was  so  im- 
pressed with  its  confident  assertions,  that  she  declared 
to  her  pastor  her  full  determination  never  again  to  em- 
ploy the  Psalmody  of  the  Presbyterian  church.* 

In  like  manner  those  whose  circumstances  have  brought 
them  in  contact  for  any  considerable  length  of  time  with 
the  books,  periodicals,  &c.  of  these  brethren,  must  have 
often  been  grieved  and  indignant  at  the  tone  of  rash, 
unbrotherly  assertion  which  frequently  appears  in  con- 
nection with  this  subject.  Charges  of  "  Infidel  flouts" — 
"  impious  rejection  of  the  Psalms  which  God  has  given" 
— "  infamous  conduct  in  setting  aside  the  God-made 
hymn  book  and  adopting  man-made  hymn  books" — 
"  disregard  of  Divine  authority,  want  of  reverence  for 
the  Scriptures,  and  low  views  in  relation  to  their  inspira- 
tion"— u  speaking  reproachfully  of  the  book  of  Psalms" 
— "  daring  presumption" — "  daring  profanity" — "  sen- 
timents derogatory  to  the  Spirit  of  inspiration" — "  crime 
verging  on  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost."  These  are 
copied  from  the  most  respectable  sources,  from  the  wri- 
tings of  men  of  years  and  standing  in  their  own  denomi- 
nations ;  and  several  of  them  from  the  official  "  Testi- 
mony" recently  issued  by  the  Associate  and  Associate  Re- 
formed, now  known  as  u  the  United  Presbyterian  body!" 

In  regard  to  the  practical  working  of  our  Psalmody, 
the  following  extraordinary  statement  was  published  in 
two  of  their  leading  magazines,*)*  issued  in  Philadelphia, 
viz  : 

"  The  Puritan  churches  in  Old  and  New  England,  and 
also  the  two  General  Assemblies  (Old  and  New  School) 
in  the  States,  are  beacons  too  alarming  to  be  disregarded. 
In  these  churches  they  have  renounced  the  Bible  Psalms, 

*  She  soon  after  joined  the  Seceders. 

f  Christian  Instructor  and  Evangelical  Repository,  for  June,  1854; 
edited  by  Drs.  Dales  and  Cooper. 


nmtODUCTORT    REMARKS.  17 

and  adopted  Watts'  and  other  collections.     The   expo 
rience  of  these  churches  Is,  that  when  human  hymns  n 
introduced  they  were  not  generally  sung  by  the  congre- 
d  :  that  was  left  with  the  leader  and  a  few  oO* 
d  a  choir  was  needed  to  keep  up  the  volume  of  sound 
1   respectable.     This,  ere   l<mg,    got  stale,  and 
me  uninteresting.     They  then  introduced  orpins  and 
all  sorts  of  'dead  instruments  giving  sound/  this  more 
more  killed  congregational  tinging*     Then  they  mul- 
tiplied hymn  books  without  end  :  (a  gentleman  in  New 
Y<>rk  lately  carried  four  hymn  books  to  church,  and  only 
out  <>f  the  four  hymns  sung  was  in  the  four  books.) 
The  result  is,  that  nobody  out  of  the  choir  now  sings,  and 
hurches  are  literally  without  praise — the  most  inter- 
Qg  and  celestial  exercise  of  the  church  on  earth,  per- 
haps in  heaven." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  extend  these  quotations.  Suffi- 
cient has  been  given  to  indicate  the  tone  and  spirit  with 
which  this  controversy  is  conducted  by  the  more  sober 
and  mature  minds  among  these  brethren.  Neither  do 
we  propose  at  present  to  say  a  word  to  espose  these  sin- 
gular allegations.  Most  of  them  will  come  in  review  as 
we  proceed  in  the  discussion.  Charity  demands  that  we 
presume  their  authors  thought  "//<>//  were  speaking  the 
truth  in  love!"  p]ven  good  men,  as  all  experience  testifies, 
when  they  become  heated  by  controversy,  may  be  deceived, 
and  unintentionally  deceive  others.  David  himself  admits 
that  he  spoke  "  in  haste,"  when  he  uttered  a  certain 
sweeping  condemnation. 

To  revert  for  a  moment  to  the  particular  work  referred 

r  correspondent — the  extracts  professedly  given 

from    the    treatises    of    the    late    Dr.    James  Latta    and 

r  three  others,    we  have  not  the  means  of  testing  by 

i  !•■  i  the  books  themselves.     They  arc  out  of 

print.     Nor  have  *  seen  Dr.  Latta'fl  work,  ei 

"py  some  yean  since,  in  the  private  library  of 
Dr.  M'GiH,  who  had  been  t  Beceder  clergyman! 
That  Dr.  L.  never  designed  to  utter  most  of  tl 

2* 


18  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

ments  attributed  to  him,  is  plain  to  my  mind  from  several 
considerations  :  they  are  in  direct  contradiction  to  the 
whole  tenor  of  his  honored  and  useful  life.  So  that  it  is 
much  easier  to  believe  that  the  author  of  the  "  Apology" 
in  the  heat  of  contest  has  mistaken  his  meaning,  than  to 
conceive  that  Dr.  L.  ever  meant  to  express  some  of  the 
sentiments  ascribed  to  him;  and  the  same  thing  is  true  of 
the  others.  If,  however,  any  opinions  on  Psalmody  have 
been  uttered  by  any  member  or  minister  of  the  Presby- 
terian body,  such  as  some  of  those  imputed  to  Dr.  L. 
and  others,  let  them  be  condemned  !  Every  sound  Pres- 
byterian will  add  his  amen  to  the  sentence.  Let  the 
volumes  be  produced  and  the  quotations  verified — then  we 
will  join  these  brethren  in  their  earnest  repudiation  of 
them. 

As  to  the  professed  quotations  from  Dr.  Watts,  his 
case  will  receive,  as  it  deserves,  a  more  particular  notice. 
He  was  the  honored  instrument,  in  the  hand  of  Provi- 
dence, in  arranging  and  versifying  the  Psalms  and 
Hymns  as  they  are  generally  used  in  our  churches  ;  and 
he  has  met  with  no  ordinary  share  of  abuse  and  misrep- 
resentation. Suffice  it  to  say  for  the  present,  that  as  our 
Psalmody  has  been  repeatedly  revised  with  great  care, 
by  large  and  respectable  committees  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, the  system  now  bears  the  official  sanction  of  that 
body.  The  views  of  Psalmody  uttered  by  Dr.  W.  in  his 
"  Essay"  and  "  Prefaces,"  have  never  been  indorsed  by 
our  Assembly.  They  may  be  true  or  false — they  are  not 
ours.  So  also  with  the  reasons  Dr.  W.  assigns  for  cer- 
tain changes  introduced  into  parts  of  the  Psalms.  The 
General  Assembly  have  sanctioned  and  adopted  many  of 
those  alterations,  with  their  own  amendments — but  not 
one  of  the  published  reasons  of  Dr.  Watts.*  We  wish 
this  to  be  particularly  noted.  Admitting  for  argument, 
that  to  a  certain  extent  Dr.  W.  has  expressed  himself 
unhappily,  injudiciously  and  unwisely,  in  regard  to  parts 
of  the  Psalms — our  church  is  no  more  responsible  for 
*  For  a  defense  of  Dr.  W.  see  Letter  XIV. 


INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS.  19 

those  forms  of  utterance  which  she  has  never  sanctioned, 
than  she  is  responsible  for  the  blunders  of  House,  in 
making  Pavid  say  the  true  Christian  in  his  experience  of 
this  life,  "hath  perfect  blessedness91 — which,  of  course, 
is  the  fruit  only  of  per/bet  hdine$8}  and  leads  directly  to 
the  error  of  "  sinless  perfection."  So  Rouse  may  have 
had  his  reasonsfor  exhibiting  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  Pb. 
:  4,  as  saying  of  the  satisfaction  he  made  to  the  Divine 
law — "TO  RENDER   FORCED    WAS   I JM    which,  of  course, 

utterly  subverts  the  doctrine  of  Atonement,  by  representing 
the  blessed  Saviour  as  a  /breed  victim  to  Divine  justice  ! 
Still,  we  have  too  much  charity  for  these  brethren,  to 
imagine  that  they  hold  these  gross  errors,  or  that  they 
have  ever  sanctioned  Rouse's  reasons  for  so  misrepresent- 
ing the  inspired  Psalmist.  Let  them  exercise  the  same 
Messed  charity  toward  their  brethren  of  other  denomina- 
tions. We  use  the  poetical  labors  of  Dr.  Watts  where 
we  approve  of  them,  just  as  we  use  those  of  any  other 
man — but  so  far  and  no  farther  are  we  responsible  for 
his  sentiments.  The  bitter  denunciations  he  has  met 
with  are  no  concern  of  ours,  except  to  see  that  there  is 
no  misrepresentation  and  slandering  of  the  venerable  dead. 
13ut  of  this  more  hereafter. 

In  view  of  the  offensive  language  we  have  quoted  in 
this  Letter,  it  must  sadden  every  Christian  heart  to  reflect 
that  the  followers  and  friends  of  a  common  Saviour 
lid  allow  themselves  to  speak  thus  of  one  another. 
There  are  better  momente^  when  even  the  authors  of  such 
harsh  expressions,  under  the  sacred  impulse,  we  trust, 
of  a  commote  faith  and  a  common  salvation,  feel  free  to 
k  of  us  as  "  a  branch  of  the  Calvinistic  Presbyterian 
church,  who  are  doing  much  to  build  up  the  Lord's  cau$ef 
*  *  *  and.  in  who*  }>r<>.<p>  rity  w<  (they;  rejoice.*** 
This  is  kind  and  brotherly,  but  in  strange  contrast  with 
othei  forms  of  expression  from   the  same  general  Bource. 

It  i-  not  the  prerogative  of  man  to  judge  the  motives 
or  "  try  the  heart" — but  it  should  not  surprise  these 
*  Uiii  •  rian,  of  Cinciuuati,  August  (J,  1849. 


20  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

brethren  if  we  find  ourselves  unable  to  appreciate  their 
extraordinary  zeal  on  such  a  topic  as  Psalmody.  In  this 
we  only  follow  the  safe  precedent  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Press- 
ly,  of  Allegheny  City,  who  many  years  ago,  having  be- 
come the  pastor  of  a  church  in  Abbeville,  S.  C,  wrote  to 
Dr.  J.  M.  Mason,  his  former  preceptor,  as  follows  : 

"I  have  some  trouble  occasionally  with  extremely 
good  people,  who  have  great  attachment  to  what  they 
term  the  'good  old  way/  but  which  might  as  fitly  be 
called  i  tradition  of  the  elders.7  There  are  three  bones 
of  contention  which  have  already  been  often  picked,  but 
yet  are  not  likely  to  be  laid  aside  till  some  of  our  fathers 
are  removed  to  the  land  of  silence,  viz.  Is  it  lawful  to 
omit  the  observance  of  a  fast  preparatory  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  ?  Is  it  scriptural  to  extend  our  Christian  fellow- 
ship beyond  the  limits  of  our  own  church  ?  Is  it  right 
to  use  any  other  than  a  literal  version  of  David's  Psalms 
in  the  public  praise  of  God  ? 

"  When  I  inform  you  that  it  has  been  customary,  on 
sacramental  occasions,  to  hear  those  anathematized  who 
would  dare  to  believe  the  affirmative  on  either  of  these 
points,  you  will  be  prepared  to  understand  somewhat  of 
the  spirit  which  we  have  to  meet.'" 

Again,  the  same  writer,  after  speaking  of  "  the  unity 
of  the  church  as  taught  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians/' 
adds — "  This  admitted,  the  doctrine  of  Catholic  commu- 
nion seemed  to  be  an  irresistible  consequence ;  and  there- 
fore I  thought  it  my  duty  to  utter  it,"  i.  e.  "the  doctrine 
of  Catholic  communion."*  It  need  occasion  no  astonish- 
ment in  the  breasts  of  these  brethren,  if  the  arguments 
which,  at  the  date  of  this  letter,  convinced  even  a  Pressly 
of  the  truth  of  our  principles,  should  even  to  this  day  be 
satisfactory  to  the  mind  of  the  Presbyterian  body  ! 

It  is  stated  by  Dr.  M' Master,  in  his  "  Apology  for  the 
Book  of  Psalms/'f  that  "in  the  neighborhood  of  those 

*  Life  of  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason,  p.  487. 

f  This  is  the  work  alluded  to  by  our  correspondent,  near  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Letter. 


INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS.  21 

churches  where  the  compositions  of  l)r.  Watts  produced 
latisfaction,  the  Associate  Reformed  ministers  were 
met  tenmdout  in  keeping  olive  the  discontents  that  ex- 
L  It  is  no  impeachment  of  their  motives,"  he 
adds,  "  when  it  is  stated  as  a  fact,  that  day  profited  by 
these  discontents.  Separation  from  former  connections 
,  raged ;  and  by  euch  cu  eepatated%  their  churches, 
in  various  parts  of  the  continent,  were  enlarged^  and  tome 
almost  wholly  formed '"  Again,  the  same  writer  charges 
the  Associate  Reformed  with  "  employing  this  as  an  in- 
strument of  rending  church*  s  and  of  breaking  up  former 
connections,"  p.  87.  If  these  things  be  true,  we  indulge 
the  hope,  that  at  least  since  the  union  with  the  Asso- 
ciate church  better  counsels  will  prevail;  and  that  as 
branches  of  the  great  Presbyterian  family,  and  especial- 
ly as  children  of  a  common  Parent,  the  redeemed  of  a 
common  Ransom,  we  shall  henceforth  cooperate,  as  far 
as  we  can,  in  the  glorious  cause  of  a  common  Salvation. 
A  spirit  such  as  this  will  do  much  to  soften  asperities, 
and  especially  to  frown  down  that  disposition,  too  preva- 
lent among  these  brethren,  to  exaggerate,  caricature  and 
render  odious  some  of  the  usages  of  the  Presbyterian 
church.  'With  the  sincere  desire  to  contribute  something 
to  the  attainment  of  these  much  wished  for  results,  the 
writer  has  prepared  the  following  Letters.  And  he  has 
been  the  more  encouraged  to  this  from  the  fact,  that  in 
their  "  Testimony"  these  brethren  earnestly  "  beseech  us 
seriously  to  consider  the  grounds  of  their  controversy  with 
u< — and  to  give  them  our  prayerful  consideration."* 
The  plan  proposed  in  the  following  discussion  is  this  : 

I.  To  examine  the  question,  whether  our  brethren  em- 
ploy  in  praise,  "  the  songs  of  mtpiratioA"  u  an 
inspired  Psalmody'1 — or  rather,  whether  their  Psal- 
mody be  not,  to  a  great  extent,  an  explanatory  para- 
jJtrasr.     Letters  II. — V. 

II.  The  question  of  a  Divink  Warrant  for  the  exttm- 
sive  use   of  the   "book  of  Psalms/'  as   the  only  and 

*  Bm  their  Twtimonj,  j>p.  7,  46. 


22  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

perpetual  Psalmody  of  the  church,  under  both  Jewish 
and  Christian  dispensations,  and  to  the  end  of  time. 
Letters  VI.—  VIII. 

III.  "The  more  excellent  way."  Statement  and  de- 
fense of  the  principles  and  practice  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  Psalmody. 
Letters  IX.— XIII. 

IV.  Defense  of  Dr.  Watts,  &c.     Letter  XIV. 


LETTER  II. 

QUESTION    AT  ISSUE!     u  IS    A  FAIR  AND   FULL  VERSION"  OF  DIVINE  AP- 
POINTMENT?  ROUSE'S  VERSIFICATION    NOT    "THE   WORD  OF    GOD '"' 

NOT  A  "VERSION"  AT  ALL,  BUT  IN  MANY  PARTS  A  "PARAPHRASE,"  OR 

MIXTURE  OF  INSPIRED  TRUTH  WITH  "HUMAN  COMPOSITION" PROVED 

BY  EXTENDED  QUOTATIONS. 

My  Dear  Sir: — In  all  discussions  of  a  moral  and 
religious  character,  it  is  of  the  last  importance  to  com- 
mence with  a  well  defined  statement  of  the  main  point  in 
dispute.  In  arriving  at  correct  views  of  this  subject, 
we  will  first  present  "the  question"  as  stated  by  our 
brethren,  and  then  point  out  its  inaccuracies  and  incon- 
sistencies. In  some  future  Letters  it  will  come  in  course 
to  exhibit  the  theory  held  by  our  church,  and  to  defend 
it  against  their  assaults. 

"The  question  at  issue/'  we  are  told,  "is,  shall  we 
have  any  fair  and  full  version  of  this  Divine  book  (of 
Psalms)  as  the  matter  of  praise" — or  "shall  we  reject 
that  (Psalm  book)  which  God  has  given,  and  prefer  our 
own  effusions."  *  "  You  (Presbyterians)  think  this  heav- 
enly hymn  book  *  *  *  is  obsolete  now,  and  that 
almost  any  body  can  write  a  better  Psalter  than  it  is." 

*  Apology,  p.  92.  On  p.  121,  Rouse  is  called  "  a  literal  and  faithful 
version." 


WHAT   SONGS   ARE   INSPIRED.  23 

"  Ilcnce  you  throw  it  all  away  except  two  short  hymns, 
and  substitute  in  its  place  all  kinds  of  poetry  written  by 
all  kinds  of  men."  *  "  The  question/'  we  are  further 
told,  "has  been  pressed  upon  us,  involving  an  impious 
rejection  of  the  Psalms  which  God  has  given  to  his  church 
as  unfit  to  be  sung,  and  the  substitution  of  hymns  of 
man's  composure,  &c."  f 

It  would  be  easy  to  quote  much  more  of  the  same  sort 
from  the  accredited  writings  of  these  brethren.  But  it 
seems  scarcely  credible  that  they  really  consider  the  fore- 
going a  fair,  unexceptionable  statement  of  the  Psalmody 
question.  Certainly  they  must  have  known  that  to  the 
mind  of  every  intelligent  Presbyterian  it  would  present 
only  an  offensive  caricature — and  that  all  their  arguments 
to  overthrow  such  positions  as  those  imputed  to  us,  would 
be  viewed  by  us  as  "contending  with  a  man  of  straw,"  and 
demolishing  a  logical  figment!  and  more  than  this — 
their  statements  do  not  give  a  correct  representation  of 
the  position  practically  held  by  their  authors  themselves, 
as  we  proceed  to  demonstrate  by  incontrovertible  facts. 

The  main  proposition  of  the  earliest  and  perhaps  the 
ablest  work  on  the  subject,  is  stated  as  follows  : 

"A  CORRECT  AND  FAITHFUL  VERSION  OF  THE  WHOLE 
BOOK  OF  PSALMS  SHOULD  BE  EMPLOYED  IN  THE  PSAL- 
MODY  OF  THE  CHURCH."  J 

This  position  is  vindicated  "on  the  ground  of  Divine 
appointment" — and  heavy  judgments  are  more  than  hint- 
ed as  the  inevitable  doom  of  those  who  "  by  their  com- 
positions have  excluded  the  songs  of  inspiration  from 
the  Psalmody  of  the  church" — and  who  have  preferred 
"some  one  prepared  by  men,  to  the  book  of  hymns 
which  God  has  provided."  ||  And  much  zeal  is  at  times 
enkindled  against  this  H  profane  exclusion  of  God's  Psalm 
book !" 

*  United  Presbyterian,  of  Cincinnati. 

f  Rev.  Dr.  Kerr,  in  Preacher. 

t  Apology,  p.  98.     The  capital  letters  are  not  ours. 

||  Preacher,  June  4th,  1844. 


24  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

These  and  many  similar  expressions  of  indignation 
are  uttered  by  those  who  employ  in  public  and  private 
praise,  what  is  commonly  known  as  "  Rouse's  version  of 
the  Psalms."  Of  course  these  brethren  must  regard 
that  " version"  as  the  veritable  Psalms  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  Hence  we  are  told  that  "  like  the  prose  ver- 
sion of  the  Bible,  it  is  remarkably  literal — it  presents 
the  Psalms  in  their  native  simplicity,  beauties  and  force ." 
"We  do  not  say  it  is  perfect;  it  is  susceptible  of  im- 
provement as  the  (prose)  version  of  the  Bible  is" — "it  is 
a  literal  and  true  version."  * 

To  the  same  effect  another  leading  author  writes  as 
follows  :  he  is  speaking  of  those  who  from  the  very 
frequent  use  of  the  term  "  paraphrase  "  in  the  acts  of 
the  Scottish  General  Assembly  authorizing  "  Rouse's 
version,"  "  have  endeavored  to  produee  the  impression 
that  it  (the  "version")  was  not  adopted  by  those  who 
regarded  it  as  a  literal  or  correct  translation  of  the 
original."  Dr.  P.  adds — "This  is  disingenuous."  Again, 
Dr.  P.  tells  us,  "it  (the  "version")  was  adopted  upon 
the  principle  that  it  is  a  faithful  translation  of  the  origi- 
nal text."  Again,  the  same  writer  quotes  with  strong 
approval  the  Rev.  Wm.  Romaine,  affirming  that  "  Dr. 
Watts  had  taken  precedence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  thrust 
him  entirely  out  the  church." 

Again  says  Dr.  Pressly  : — "  This  (Rouse's)  version  is 
not  an  explanation,  but  a  translation  of  the  Psalms. 
Like  the  prose  translation  of  the  whole  Bible,  it  is  the 
work  of  man,  and  in  some  respects  might  be  amended. 
The  same  will  be  universally  admitted  in  relation  to  the 
prose  translation  of  the  Bible.  Both  these  translations 
are  substantially  correct  and  faithful ;  and  for  the  same 
reason  they  are  both  to  be  regarded  as  the  word  of 
God." 

In  these  extracts  from  two  of  the  leading  authors  on 
that  side  of  the  controversy,  we  have  at  a  glance  the 
precise  position  maintained  by  the  denominations  which 
*  Apology,  p.  121,  Ac. 


WHA1    SONGS   ARE    INSPIRED.  25 

they  reprosont ;  they  sing  "  the  inspired  Psalm  book" 
— "the  word  of  God  ;"  we  ring  only  "human  composi- 
tions " — "  the  effusions  of  fallible  men."  Theirs  is 
"God's  Psalter" — "a  correct  and  faithful  translation;91 

ours  is  "a  human  Psalm  book."  Their  principle  is 
"  a  literal  or  correct  translation."  Ours  is  "  human 
composition"  in  preference  to  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Now  we  do  not  ask  the  reader  to  receive  our  assertions 
as  proof — we  appeal  to  the  record,  and  undertake  to  show 
by  most  incontrovertible  evidence,  that  these  charges  and 
allegations  are  without  foundation.  The  Psalmist  say-, 
that  on  one  occasion  he  spoke  "in  haste" — and  so  with 
ft  brethren  in  this  instance.  We  accept  the  V  st 
which  they  offer,  viz.  "  the  prose  translation  of  the 
Bible,"  and  we  undertake  to  prove  that  measured  by  this 
rule,  "Rouse's  version"  is  not  "a  correct  and  faithful 
version  or  translation,"  and  is  not  "for  the  same  reason 
the  word  of  God."  * 

And  we  feel  the  greater  willingness  to  measure  their 
Psalmody  by  this  standard,  because  in  the  judgment  of 
th*e  Christian  world  wherever  the  English  Bible  is  read, 
its  fidelity,  perspicuity  and  excellence  have  deservedly 
secured  for  our  prose  version  a  high  and  distinguished 
place.  "  It  is  the  best  translation  in  the  world."  "  It 
may  justly  contend  with  any  now  extant  in  Europe." 
"It  is  the  best  standard  of  our  language."  "It  has 
enriched  and  adorned  our  language."  "  Of  all  ver- 
sions, it  must  in  general  be  accounted  the  most  excel- 
lent." "  The  translators  have  seized  the  very  spirit  and 
of  the  original)  and  expressed  this  almost  every 
where  with  pathos  and  energy."  "They  have  been  as 
lib  r<d  as  t1i> y  could  to  avoid  obscurity."  Such  are  a  few 
of  the  expressed  opinions  of  scholars  of  the  highest 
eminence,  and  of  various  shades  of  theological  belief. 
And  tried  by  this  standard,  the  system  of  praise  called 
u  B  -ion"  has  no  just  claims  to  be  "  a  true  and 

literal  translation,"  "or  inspired  Psalmody" — but  to  a 
♦Preacher,  Doe.  It,  Ml;  Au-.  'J,  Is  11. 
3 


26 


LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 


great  extent  is  a  mere  patchwork  paraphrase,  u  a  human 
explanation  of  the  word  of  God  !  "     Now  for  the  proof. 
We  begin  with  Psalm  102 : 


PROSE  VERSION. 

I  am  like  a  pelican  in   the 
wilderness. 

I   am   like   an    owl  of  the 
desert 

Because   of  thine    indigna- 
tion and  thy  wrath. 

And     not     despise     their 
prayer. 

When  the  people  are  gath- 
ered together. 

They  that  are  mad  against 
me,  are  sworn  against  me. 

But  thou,  0  Lord,  shalt  en- 
dure for  ever. 


ROUSE. 

Like  pelican  in  wilderness 
Forsaken  I  have  been. 

I  like  an  owl  in  desert  am, 
That  nightly  there  doth  moan. 

Thy  wrath  and  indignation 
Did  cause  this  grief  and  pain. 

Their  prayer  will  he  not  despise, 
By  him  it  shall  be  heard. 

When  as  the  people  gather  shall 
In  troops  with  one  accord. 

The  madmen  are  against  me  sworn, 
The  men  against  me  that  rose. 


But  thou,  0  Lord,  cTialt  still  endure, 
From  change  and  all  mutation  free. 

These  illustrations  occur  in  the  first  twelve  verses  of 
the  Psalm;  and  it  will  be  seen  that  a  full  half  is  "mere 
human  composition  l"  And  is  this  "  a  literal  and  faith- 
ful version  t"  Does  this  "  deserve  to  be  regarded  as  the 
word  of  God  as  really  as  the  prose  translation  V9  Is  not 
this  "  human  explanation  ?" 

We  next  refer  to  the  105th  Psalm  : 


PROSE   VERSION. 
Seek     the    Lord    and    his 
strength,  seek  his  face   ever- 


ROUSE. 


The  Lord  almighty,  and  his  strength, 
With  steadfast  hearts  seek  ye: 
His  blessed  and  his  gracious  face 
Seek  ye  continually. 


When  they  went  from  one  na- 
tion to  another,  from  one  king- 
dom to  another. 


While  yet  they  went  from  land  to  land, 
Without  a  sure  abode  ; 
And  while,  thro'  sundry  kingdoms, f/*ey 
Did  wander  far  abroad. 

But  yet  he  sent  a  man  before, 
By  whom  they  should  be  fed. 

Until  the  time  that  his  word  came 
To  give  him  liberty. 

It  will  be  observed  that  more  than  half  of  these  sis 


He  sent  a  man  before  them. 

Until  the  time  that  his  word 
came. 


WHAT    80*68    ARE    INSPIRED.  27 

couplets  is  "men  explanation"  and  paraphrase.     Yet  it 

is  all  declared  to  be  "not  an  explanation,  but  a  transla- 
tion;" jrea,  a  "literal  and  faithful  translation  I"  Thus 
"the  productions  vf  men  are  exalted  to  a  level  with  the 
word  of  God  I"  If  this  is  what  they  mean  by  u  the  -"Ugs 
:  in  heaven/'  which  they  prof eu  to  su\'j}  they  re- 
duce the  inspired  word  of  God  very  near  to  a  level  with 
their  prayers  and  sermons,  "mere  human  effusions.' '  It 
WOtdd  be  easy  to  fill  pages  with  similar  illustrations — but 
leal  we  should  weary  the  reader,  we  adduce  some  further 
examples  under  three  distinct  heads,  as  follows  : 

I.  In  numerous  examples,  "the  human  composition" 
is  a  more  repetition  of  the  inspired  sentiment,  with  some 
expansion  of  the  thought : 

PROSE    VERSION.  ROUSE. 

amiable  are  thy  taber-     How  lovely  is  thy  dwelling  place 
naeles,  0  Lord  of  hosts.  0  Lord  of  hosts,  to  me  ! 

The  tabernacles  of  thy 
How  pleasant,  Lord,  they  be. 

Thy  mercy  held  me  up.  Thy  mercy  held  me  up,  0  Lord — 

>.$8  did  me 

Round    about   their  habita-     All  round  about  the  tabernacles, 
tions.  where  they  did  dicell. 

The  voice  of  thy  thunder  was  Thy  thunder's  voice  along  the  heaven 
in  the  heaven.  A  might)/  noise  did  make. 

Thou  Ltddttt  thy  people  like     Thy  people  thou  didst  Mt/t/j 
a  flock  by  the  hand  of  Moses     Like  to  ■  flock  of  sheep, 
and  Aaron.  Bj  Motet1  hand  an  1  Ation'a  thou 

Jjidst  them  conduct  and  keep. 

M  are  bright  specimens  of  the  "inspired  Psalmo- 
dy u  of  these  brethren  !   "  In  the  Psalms,"  says  one  of  tl 
authors,  "God  has  presented  his  own  truth  in  thr*  way 
which   to  his  infinite   wisdom   *  -:."     But  here 

there  is  an  evident  and  great  departure  from  "the  way  of 
infinite  wisdom  I"  Yet  we  are  required  to  receive  all 
rain  repetitions"  and  explanation*  as  "a  literal 
and  correct  translation  of  the  original."41  It  is  all  ''the 
word  of  Qodrj  With  about  the  same  propriety  might 
•  Preacher,  December  13,  1  - 


28  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

they  call  their  pulpit  " explanations "  of  the  Psalms  "the 
word  of  God  lu 

II.  Many  scores  of  these  "  human  explanations  "  are 
merely  Rouse's  additional  thoughts  employed  to  fill  up  the 
verse  and  make  metre.     Thus  : 

PROSE    VERSION.  ROUSE. 

Be  thankful  unto  Him  and  Praise,  laud  and  blesshis  name  always; 
bless  his  name.  For  it  is  seemly  so  to  do. 

Which     sing     among     the     Which  do  among  the  branches  sing 
branches.  With  delectation. 

God  hath  spoken  in  his  holi-     God  in  his  holiness  hath  said, 
ness.  Herein  I  will  take  pleasure. 

My  soul  breaketh  for  the  My  soul  within  me  breaks,  and  doth 
longing  that  it  hath.  Much  fainting  still  endure. 

I  delayed  not  I  did  not  stay,  nor  linger  long, 

As  those  that  slothful  are. 

I  thought  on  my  ways.  I  thought  upon  my  former  ways 

And  did  my  life  well  try. 

For  I  am  become  like  a  bot-     For  like  a  bottle  Fm  become, 
tie  in  the  smoke.  That  in  the  smoke  is  set. 

I'm  black  and  parched  with  grief. 

Their    heart    is    as    fat    as     Their  hearts,  through  worldly  ease 
grease.  wealth, 

As  fat  as  grease  they  be. 

In  the  following  examples  House's  explanations  are  in 
italics,  to  distinguish  them  from  the  inspired  word  of 

Thy  holy  words  forgotten  have, 
And  do  thy  laws  despise. 

Rose  up  in  wrath 

To  make  of  us  their  prey. 

And  as  fierce  floods, 

Before  them  all  things  drown. 

Unto  their  teeth 
And  bloody  cruelty. 

To  him  that  Egypt  smote, 
Who  did  his  message  scorn, 
And  in  his  anger  hot 
Did  kill  all  their  first  born. 

Even  through  the  desert  dry 
And  in  that  place  them  fed. 


WHAT    SONGS    ARE    INSPIRED.  29 

T->  thee  my  htlp  alone 

■  md* 

AH  mi/  complaint  and  nocm* 

there  tb<> v  wett  afraid,  and  stood 
]\'ith  trtnih/hnj,  all  dixmny'd, 

it  all 
W  hy  they  §hould  l»  afraid, 

'in  and  tlti/  truth. 

That  We  may  live  th>    • 

But  overwhelmed  and  lo%t 
Wu  proud  king  Pharaoh, 
AVith  mil  hi?  mighty  A 
And  tkariott  uUo. 

\  comment  is  necessary  to  point  out  to  every  intelli- 
gent reader  the  absurdity  of  calling  all  this  u  the  word 
of  God" — "songs  of  inspiration;"  "songs  composed  in 
heaven;"  "a  correct,  faithful  and  literal  translation  I" 
"We  are  almost  tempted  to  employ  the  language  of  the 
prophet,  and  say  of  these  brethren,  "  who  is  blind  as  my 
servant  !"  This  "  the  word  of  God  for  the  same  reason 
that  the  prose  mi  tmr  Bibles  is  so  /" 

III.  A  third  class  of  these  u  human  improvements" 
includes  a  full  half  of  House's  inventions,  as  follows  : 

Thou  art  the  Gtod  that  wonders  dost 
thy  right  hand  mo»t  strong. 

Their  ensigns  they  set  up  for  signs 

Of  triumph  thee  I 

A  man  was  famous  and  was  had 
In  estimation. 

They  set  their  mouths  ■gainst  the  heavens 
In  their  b  ■■ilk. 

And  they  a  passage  had, 

Lu'n  marching  through  the  flood  on  foot, 

y  when  fl Ii  of  i 

•  U  up  to  thi 

ihaU  mot  overwhelm  his  soul, 
ones  come  nigh  bo  him. 

The  Lord  will  light  mv  candle  so 
That  itehaU  thim  full  bright. 

r  in  their  heart  thej  tempted  God, 
And  tpoaking  with  mietruot, 

8* 


30  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

The  nations  of  Canaan 
By  his  Almighty  hand. 

And  there  were  none  to  bury  them 
When  they  were  slain  and  dead. 

So  that  all  passengers  do  pluck 
And  make  of  her  a  prey. 

They  in  their  hands  shall  bear  thee  up, 
Still  waiting  thee  upon. 

The  italics  will  show  at  a  glance  where  the  inspired 
word  ends,  and  Rouse  begins  his  composition.  We  have 
no  room  for  further  illustrations  of  this  sort.  But  how 
many  of  these  complete  lines  of  Rouse's  composition  does 
any  one  suppose  are  found  in  this  "  correct  and  faithful 
version  V9  We  have  not  examined  the  whole,  but  so  far 
as  we  have  compared  the  "  version  M  with  "  the  prose  in  our 
Bibles,"  we  have  marked  one  hundred  and  seventy-four 
entire  lines.  In  other  words,  there  is  sufficient  of  this  sort 
of  interpolation,  this  "human"  patchwork  upon  " the  in- 
spired word  of  God,"  to  make  seven  whole  Psalms  of  the  size 
of  Psalm  1,  and  more  than  twenty-four  of  the  size  of  Psalm 
117.  These  are  all  "  the  suggestions  of  men  " — they  are 
"human  inventions,"  with  which  "the  word  of  God" 
has  been  interwoven,  explained,  the  versification  length- 
ened out,  &c.  Yet  all  this  is  recommended  as  a  "  literal 
or  correct  translation  of  the  original  text "  —  u  a  correct 
and  faithful  version,"  &c. 

And  now  in  closing  this  letter,  we  make  our  appeal  to 
every  intelligent  mind.  Are  these  "  the  Holy  Spirit's 
Psalms  ?"  Is  it  not  an  insult  to  the  Spirit  of  inspiration 
to  attribute  to  Him  all  these  specimens  of  "  human  effu- 
sion." What  sort  of  idea  of  "  inspiration  "  must  they 
have,  who  thus  degrade  it  to  the  level  of  "  human  inven- 
tions." The  theory  of  "a  literal  and  faithful  version 
as  of  Divine  appointment,"  proves  to  be  a  mere  fig- 
ment. Yet  strange  to  say,  these  brethren  proclaim,  "we 
dare  not  put  a  human  explanation  in  the  place  of  the 
word  of  God."  "  Why  does  any  one  ask  us  to  take  a  hu- 
man explanation  of  an  inspired  Psalm  ?     *     *     *     To 


WHAT    BOKQfl    ARE    INSPIRED.  31 

such  ■  request  we  could  not  accede  without  offering  crim- 
inal disrespect  to  the  word  of  <!.>.!  !"*     It  may  perhaps 
harsh  to  pronounce  such  professions  h  these  mere 
oratorical  flourishes  employed  for  effect.     But  facts  are 

stubborn  things.     We  shall  resume  the  subject  in  our 
next  letter. 


LETTER  III. 

DISCUSSION  CONTINUED  —  ROUSE   A  PATCHWORK    OF  HUMAN  AND  DIVIVR 
::NTS    AND    PHRASK«»LuCY — vol    IU    word    of   god   in   the 

IN    WHICH    OUB    PROSE    TRAN^I.ATI  >N    IS    SO FURTHER 

EXTRACTS    AND    PARALLELS    TO    PROVE    THIS. 

My  Dear  Sir: — We  are  employed  in  testing  "the 
inspired  Psalmody"  of  our  brethren,  by  the  standard 
proposed  by  themselves,  viz.  the  admirably  correct  and 
faithful  translation  found  in  our  Bibles.  Do  they  em- 
ploy in  praise  "an  inspired  Psalmody  exclusively?" 
This  is  their  profession — but  we  appeal  to  the  record. 
Our  examples  have  thus  far  been  confined  to  complete  lines 
of  interpolation,  the  inventions  of  Rouse.  Let  us  next 
glance  at  some  lesser  improvi  mt  tUt  upon  the  inspired  text. 

Of  these  smaller  additions  we  have  marked  more  than 
\dn  /.  varying  from  a  couple  of  words  to  almost 
a  full  line  of  the  verse.  These  are  all  mere  human  patch- 
_'  1  with  the  inspired  text,  and  they  make 
"  R  reion"   Tery  unlike  "the  prose  translation 

of  the  Bible,"  and  for  that  reason,  it  is  not  "  the  word 
of  God"  in  the  same  Bense.  We  confine  our  extracts  to 
select  specimens,  the  "human  composition9'  being  in 
italics  : 

ou  thine  hand  doit  open  wide 
A  ml  •-very  thing  dot!  satisfy 

Of  thy  great  liber  i 

*  rres«lj  on  Pnln  >!;  ,  p,  !  | 


32  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

And  divers  hinds  of  filthy  frogs 
He  sent  them  to  destroy.  . 

Behold  the  sparrow  findeth  out 
A  house  wherein  to  rest: 
The  swallow  also  for  herself 
Hath  purchased  a  nest. 

Also  the  rain  that  falleth  down 
The  pools  with  water  fills. 

Who  by  assured  confidence 
On  thee  alone  doth  rest. 

And  in  old  age  when  others  fade, 
They  fruit  still  forth  shall  bring. 

They  shall  be  fat  and  full  of  sap, 
And  aye  be  flourishing. 

Although  they  curse  with  spite,  yet  Lord 
Bless  thou  with  loving  voice. 

Wherefore  their  days  in  vanity 

He  did  consume  and  waste  ; 

And  by  his  wrath,  their  wretched  years 

Away  in  trouble  past. 

0  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel, 
Let  none,  who  search  do  make 
And  seek  thee,  be  at  any  time 
Confounded  for  my  sake. 

In  the  u  inspired  Psalmody"  of  these  brethren,  we  have 
noted  three  hundred  and  thirty-two  examples  of  this  sort. 
Varying  from  two  words  to  six  or  seven,  we  will  suppose 
the  average  to  be  three,  which  will  give  one  hundred  and 
sixty-six  full  lines  of  poetry,  the  whole  of  which  is  "  hu- 
man composition/'  superadded  and  interwoven  with  "  the 
prose  translation  of  the  Bible." 

Thus  taken  collectively,  we  have  here  matter  amounting 
to  seven  more  full  songs  of  praise  of  the  size  of  Psalm  1, 
and  more  than  twenty-four  of  the  size  of  Psalm  117,  all 
of  which  is  of  human  origin  and  invention ;  yet  are  we  seri- 
ously assured  by  these  brethren,  that  "  like  the  version 
of  the  Bible,  this  of  the  Psalms  is  very  literal."  And 
Dr.  P.  adds,  "  that  like  the  prose  version  of  the  Bible, 
it  should  be  considered  as  a  literal  or  correct  translation 
of  the  original  text." 

In  addition  to  all  this,  the  statements  of  these  authors  is 


WHAT    S<>N»;S    ARE    INSPIRED.  33 

refuted  in  nearly  every  page  of  their  Psalmody.      Besides 
matter  sufficient  to  make  more  than  fourteen  songs  of  praise 

of  the  size  of  Psalm  1,  and  twenty-four  like  Psalm  117, 
there  is  a  large  number  of  epithets  and  expletives  of  vari- 
!  and  sizes,  thrown  in  to  fill  out  the  verse,  of  which 
we  have  counted  one  hundred  and  eighty-six  which  be- 
long not  to  "  the  prose  translation  of  the  Bible. "  In 
proof  <>f  these  allegations  we  refer  jirat  to  the  very  doubt- 
Jul  use  which  is  often  made  in  Rouse's  Psalmody  of  the 
peculiar  names  and  titles  of  the  Divine  Being  as  mere  ver- 
bal expletives,  mere  poetical  expedients  to  round  a  stanza, 
or  fill  up  a  defective  line,  where  those  awful  names  are 
entirely  wanting  in  the  original.  We  present  the  follow- 
ing example,  the  words  supplied  being  in  italics : 

The  spearmen's  host,  the  multitude 

Of  bulls,   tohiek  jhrr,h/  1, ,(,];. 

Tnoee  enlrei  which  people  ha\e  forth  sent, 

0  Lord  our  God,  rebuke, 

Till  every  one  lubmit  himself 

And  silver  pieces  bring. 

The  people  that  delight  in  war 

Diiperae,  0  God  and  Kukj. 

The  verse  (Ps.  68  :  30)  of  which  this  is  assumed  to  be 
"a  literal  and  faithful  version,"  does  not  once  name  the 
great  Being  who  is  the  object  of  all  religious  adoration; 
and  it  really  presents  a  serious  inquiry  how  far  this  inter- 
polation of  the  great  and  glorious  name  which  is  above 

rj  name,  for  such  a  purpose,  is  a  rttigum*  and  dt 
use  of  it — how  far  it  is  morally  right  to  thrust  tl 
awful  titles  into  the  verse  to  make  rhyme,  or  help  out  a 
defective  stanza,  where  Divine  Wisdom  has  seen  fit  to  with- 
hold them;  and  this  objection  lies  with  peculiar  force 
when  this  is  viewed  as  an  irreverent  ///><  rty  taken  by 
Iding  to  the  word  of  God,"  the  very  thoughts  and 
matter  in  which  He  has  "taughi  tu  how  to  praise,"  thus 
much  and  u<>  more.  Set  this  u^e  of  the  peeuliar  nam.  s 
and  titles  of  the  Deity  II  v»  ry  frequent,  not  less  than 
eighteen  or  twenty  sach  ezampl  found  in  the 

119th  Ptalao  aa  versified  by  Bouse;  and  indeed  they  are 


34  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

to  be  thus  met  with  in  very  many  of  the  Psalms,  perhaps 
in  most  of  them. 

The  following  examples  are  from  Psalm  119 : 

An  end  of  all  perfection 
Here  have  I  seen,  0  God. 
But  as  for  thy  commandment, 
It  is  exceeding  broad. 

I  am  with  sore  affliction 
Even  overwhelmed,   0  Lord, 
In  mercy  raise  and  quicken  me 
According  to  thy  word. 

In  the  next  place,  a  similar  use  is  made  of  many  of  the 
revealed  perfections  of  the  great  and  terrible  God,  for 
the  mere  purposes  of  poetry,  smoothing  a  line  or  com- 
pleting the  requisite  number  of  feet.  Such  are  "  Most 
High/'  "Most  Gracious/'  "the  Eternal,"  "Mighty/' 
"  Almighty/'  &c.  These  are  all  the  improvements  of 
Rouse  upon  "the  Psalms  which  God  has  given."  They 
belong  not  to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  are  the 
work  of  man. 

In  the  third  place,  there  are  many  scores  of  adjectives 
and  similar  qualifying  terms  thrown  in,  and  put  where 
the  Holy  Spirit  never  put  them;  such  as  bashful,  dread- 
ful, bright,  clear,  glorious,  gloriously,  sharply,  closed, 
subtilely,  wrong,  spitefully,  wholly,  fierce,  fiercely,  cheer- 
fully, plenteously,  devouring,  lofty,  cruel,  sore,  safely, 
faintly,  openly,  proud,  flaming,  beloved,  dear,  truly, 
continually,  dolefully,  exceedingly,  malicious,  greatly, 
secretly,  openly,  lewd,  mournfully,  profanely,  pure,  un- 
tainted, unspotted,  sweet,  straight,  divine,  earnestly, 
carefully,  devouring,  perplexedly,  perfect,  and  many 
others  of  the  same  sort.  These,  in  the  places  from  which 
we  have  copied  them,  are  examples  of  mere  poetical 
license — mere  patchwork — "  human  inventions"  to  save 
the  credit  of  the  verse,  lest  it  should  appear  like  "  the 
legs  of  the  lame."  Of  course,  they  are  no  part  of  "the 
word  of  God,"  and  therefore  form  another  large  collec- 
tion of  exceptions  to  "  the  literal  or  correct  translation." 
Again;  we  appeal  to  every  candid  mind,  whether  it  be  a 


WHAT    SONGS    ARE    INSPIRED.  35 

fair  statement  to  speak  of  such  a  system  of  Psalmody  as 
"the  inspired  Psalter" — " God's  Psalm  book"  —  "the 
BOQgfl  of  the  Hoi j  Spirit,"  &0,  Have  they  not  spoken 
"in  haste,"  who  claim  for  Rouse's  version  an  inspired 
literalnees  and  correctness  equal  to  the  prose  translation 
of  the  whole  word  of  God?     Yet  we  are   told  with   all 

Bible  gravity,  that  in  "these  songs  the  church  is  fur- 
nished  with  suitable  matter  for  praising  God,  *  *  * 
tmatter  as  is  proper  to  be  offered  in  praise  to  God, 
*  *  *  thi  9ong*  in  which  He  has  presented  his  own 
truth  in  the  way  which  to  him  seemed  be*L"*  And  to 
give  point  and  energy  to  these  statements,  it  is  vehe- 
mently inquired,  "  May  we  not  introduce  some  thinys 
into  the  worship  of  God  for  which  we  have  not,  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  r1  To  which  I  answer,  No  !|  We  would 
respectfully  inquire,  whether  all  these  patches  of  "  human 
composition"  are  not  "some  thinys?"  and  if  so,  have 
they* a  "thus  saith  the  Lord?" 

"Our  plea,"  say  these  brethren,  "is  for  a  true  version 
of  the  book  of  Psalms  as  of  Divine  authority."  "An 
inspired  P>almody  only  is  to  be  used,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  compositions  ot*  men,  which  give  human  views  fjf 
Divine  truth.^'l  From  this  it  might  be  inferred  that  Rouse 
has  not  given  "human  views  of  Divine  truth."  Indeed, 
if  "  the  book  of  Psalms  in  a  fair  awl  full  vertion}  a  lit* 
and  faithful  version,  is  alone  of  Divine  authority,"  as  we  are 
.red,  then  it  follows  that  these  brethren  use  only 
a  human  Psalmody  !  Their  "  worship  is  without  Divine 
ri}p'.intment."||  In  their  own  language,  we  say — "these 
are  not  the  songs  which  God  has  given  to  his  church  ;" 
but  a  system  as  different  as  a  piece  of  silk  cloth  pate 
with  mnre  than  five  hundred  fragments  of  cotton  is  dif- 
Qt  from  the  pure  fabric  !  If  a  strict  literal  adherence 
t<»  the  thought,  sentiment  and  order  of  the  Psalms  is 
alene  of  Divine  requirement,  then  these  brethren  use  a 

*  Prenlj  od  Psalmody,  p.  115. 

f  United  I  a,  of  Cincinnati. 

;   l'r  — '. v  on  Psalmody,  \>.  G'J. 
|  Apology,  p,  103, 


LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 


system  of  human  origin.  It  would  be  easy  to  quote  from 
their  volume  of  praise,  many  pages  of  these  "human 
views  of  Divine  truth,"  which  they  so  zealously  denounce 
and  so  constantly  sing !  We  have  space,  however,  for 
only  a  few  additional  examples,  from  Psalm  18. 

PROSE  VERSION.  ROUSE. 

I  was  also  upright  before  him.      Sincere  be/ore  him  was  my  heart, 
With  him  upright  was  I. 

Thou    wilt    save  the   afflicted     For  thou  wilt  the  afflicted  save, 
people.  In  grief  that  low  do  lie. 

For  thou  wilt  light  my  candle.     The  Lord  will  light  my  candle  so, 
That  it  shall  shine  full  bright. 

By  thee  I  have  run  through  a  By  thee  through  troops  of  menl  break 
troop.  And  them  discomfit  all. 

We  respectfully  submit,  that  in  these  and  many  other 
similar  specimens,  for  which  we  have  not  room,  "  human 
views  "  constitute  more  than  half  of  what  is  called  "  a 
fair  and  literal  version,"  "  an  inspired  Psalmody  exclu- 
sively ! w  And  in  view  of  such  facts  as  these,  may  we 
not  retort  upon  these  brethren  the  inquiry,  "  Is  not  your 
own  Psalmody  a  presumptuous  attempt  to  improve  the 
work  of  God  ?  "  *  Is  it  thus  you  treat  "  those  Divine 
hymns  in  which  you  are  taught  by  infinite  wisdom  how 
to  praise  Him  ?  "f 

Before  closing  this  letter  we  wish  to  notice  a  paragraph 
from  Dr.  Junkin's  work  "on  the  Prophecies/'  which 
these  brethren  often  quote  in  this  discussion  with  great 
apparent  satisfaction.  "  Dr.  Watts/' says  Dr.  J.,  "  has  at- 
tempted to  improve  upon  the  very  sentiment  and  matter 
and  order  of  the  Psalms. "  Again,  "  God's  order  of 
thought  is  doubtless  the  best  for  his  church. "  Now  sup- 
pose we  grant  what  is  here  asserted,  does  not  Rouse  alter 
the  matter  and  order  and  sentiment  of  the  Psalms? 
Look  at  the  specimens  in  previous  pages  !  Is  there  no 
attempt  to  improve  upon  the  sentiment  there  ?  No  change 

*  Preacher,  April  5th,  1844. 
f  Preacher,  March  8th,  1844. 


WHAT   BONGS   ABB    INSPIRED.  37 

of  or<h  r  f     Take  a  few  specimens  in  which  Rouse  inverts 
the  Divine  order : 

PE08I    FBRUOV.  ROUSE. 

Hi  I  from  my  sins  and    All  mine  Iniquities  blot  out, 

it  all  mine  Iniquities.  Thy  face  hide  from  my  sins. 

RrefJ    DBS    of    them    is    gono     They  altogether  filthy  are, 
backward,    they    are     altogether     They  all  are  backward  gone, 
become  til  thy. 

I  have  I   put  my  trust ;     I  will  not  fear  what  flesh  can  do, 
I  will  not  fear  what  man  can  do     My  trust  is  M  the  Lord. 
unto  me. 

They  hnve  prepared  a  net  for     My  soul's  bound  down;  for  they  a 
my  steps  ;  my  soul  is  bowed  down.         net 

Have  laid  my  steps  to  snare. 

God  will   save  Zion,  and  build     For  God  will  Judah's  cities  build, 
the  cities  of  Judah.  And  he  will  Sion  save. 

In  the  Psalmody  of  these  brethren,  there  are  from  forty 
to  fifty  such  inversions  of  "  God's  order  of  thought."  Of 
course  the  crime  in  the  one  case  is  not  less  than  in  the 
other.  Rouse  and  Dr.  Watts  are  in  the  same  condemna- 
ti  n.  Dr  Watte,  for  example,  transposed  a  part  of  the 
Tenet  of  Psalm  119,  "in  order  to  attain  some  degree  of 
connection."  This  was  done  in  a  Psalm  of  which  the 
pious  Matthew  Henry  Bays,  "there  is  seldom  any  coht- 
sjnoilg  the  verses."  There  was  therefore  some  ex- 
cuse for  Dr.  Watts  in  changing  "the  order  "  of  the  origi- 
nal— but  these  brethren  reverse  "God's  order  of  thought" 
wlu-re  there  is  no  such  apology,  nor  any  other,  except  that 
v  is  so  in  the  "version!"  Let  common  sense  decide 
which  is  the  more  guilty  party. 

But  in   view  of  such  transpositions  as  these,  perhaps 
they  can  inform  us  whether  the   "  mind  of  the  Spirit  is 
exhibited  90  awkv&rdfyaa  to  render  it  necessary  that  the 
raid  be  much  transposed."* 

We  here  close  our  strictures  on  the  additions  saner ; 
and  sung  by  these  brethren,  upon  "the  songs  which  I  I 
lias  given  to  his  church."      If  we  had  no  further  proof. 
this   would   suffice   to  show  that  the  principle  which  rv- 
*  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  hi. 
4 


38  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

quires  a  u  correct  and  faithful  version  of  the  whole  book 
of  Psalms,  as  of  Divine  appointment/'  is  the  merest 
figment  of  the  human  brain.  But  to  make  assurance 
doubly  sure,  we  propose  in  our  next  Letter  to  demonstrate 
that  these  brethren  are  guilty  of  numerous  omissions  from 
"the  songs  in  which  God  has  taught  us  how  to  praise/' 
u  from  the  very  matter  in  which  he  has  presented  his  own 
truth  in  the  icay  which  to  him  seemed  best."  *  We  shall 
thus  more  fully  test  the  professions  of  these  brethren, 
viz.  that  u  like  the  prose  version  of  the  Bible,  their 
Psalmody  is  the  word  of  God."  Suppose  that  any  man 
or  set  of  men  should  publish  the  whole  Bible  with  such 
comments,  explanations  and  other  human  patchwork  as 
the  foregoing  specimens  from  Rouse,  would  any  person 
venture  seriously  to  offer  such  commixture  as  the  pure 
Scriptures,  the  genuine  "productions  of  the  Holy  Spirit?" 
Let  reason  decide. 


LETTEE  IV. 


BOOK  OF  PSALMS  NOT  DESIGNED  TO  BE  THE  ONLY  PERPETUAL  AND 

UNCHANGEABLE  PSALMODY  OF  THE  CHURCH NOT  SO  REGARDED 

BY  THE  CHURCH  OF  SCOTLAND,  HER  MARTYRS  AND  HOLY  MEN 

"A  MODERN  DISCOVERY  " — NOT  PRACTICALLY  ADOPTED  BY  THESE 
BRETHREN  THEMSELVES  —  OMISSION   OF  PSALM  72:  20 — MOST  OF 

THE   INSPIRED  TITLES  EXCLUDED  FROM  ROUSE THESE  PROVED 

TO   BE  A  PART  OF  THE   INSPIRED  TEXT  BY  DR.  ALEXANDER, 

HORNE  AND  OTHERS A  GLANCE  AT  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  THEORY 

OF  PSALMODY. 

My  Dear  Sir  : — The  theory  of  Psalmody  taught  by 
the  writers  we  have  so  often  quoted  is  this  :  The  book 
of  Psalms  was  designed  by  its  all-wise  Author  as  the  un- 
changeable, all-sufficient  and  perpetual  system  of  praise, 
composed  for  this  express  object,  and  of  course  perfectly 
adapted  to  this  end.  Hence,  they  infer,  to  take  from  or 
*  Preacher,  June  14th,  1844. 


WHAT   BONGS    ABB   IN.-TIRED.  39 

Id  to  this,  which  ia  u  God's  Psalm  book  M — in  other 
Is,  to  treat  it  as  anything  bat  •  complete  and  perfect 
m  of  pradrn  for  New  Testament  times,  is  ■  sped* 
impiety  !     Not  less  bo  than  to  cut  out  a  part  of  the  Bible, 

Of  attempt    to  improve,  by   a«l<litions  or  otherwise,   any 
other  part  of  the  canon  of  Divine  revelation. 

That  we  have  fairly  stated  their  views  is  plain.       wDo 

you  think,"   inquires   one,  "  that  the  wrord  of  God  has 

D  given  in  such  a  defective  form  that  some  parts  of  it 

may  be   laid  aside  cm   mefew,  while  portions  may  b 

lecfc  lb-  is  arguing  against  the  omission  of  any 

]  art   of   the  Psalms,  and   calls  such  omission  "  laying 

H  parts  of  the  word  of  God." 

"The  book  of  Psalms," adds  another,  "was  given  as  a 

part  of  Divine  revelation,  *  *  given  to  the  church  as  the 

matter  of  her  Psalmody."     "To  take  away  from  its  ap- 

pointed  use  any  portion  of  sacred  Scripture  is  tantamount 

king  it  frum  the  Bible."     And  to  enforce  this  view, 

he   quotes  several  texts   such  as  these — "  Add   thou  not 

unto  his  words,  lest  he  reprove  thee  and  thou  be  found  a 

liar."      "If  any  man  shall  take  away  from  the  words  of 

this  book,  God  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of 

life." 

These  extracts  show  with  sufficient  clearness  the  pre- 
i«»n  of  these  brethren,  and  the  great  marvel  is, 
that  they  seem  never  to  have  suspected  that  they  were  re- 
ling   their  own   doom  !     We  have  proved  in  previous 
that  adding  to  the  matter  of  the  Psalms  is  their 
habitual  practice — that  their  system  embraces  many  1 
patches    of    "  human    composition. "      And   we   are  now 
about  to  prove  that  "  tJu  >/  lay  asidi  a%  ust  >>  u  large  portions 
of  the  word  of  God;"   in  other  words,  they  t^y^V  parts  of 
alms  from  their  system  of  }  : 
But  before  proceeding  to  the  prouf,  we  premise  one  or 
two  i  bserrataons  : 

1.   This  notion  of  the  absolute  and  intangible  sacred- 

*  I':  v.  p,   112. 

t  -M  "-••-y-  i  i  •  101,  no. 


40  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

ness  of  the  book  of  Psalms  as  the  system  of  praise  for 
the  church  in  all  ages,  is  purely  a  modern  discovery  ! 

The  fearful  crime  of  adding  to  and  taking  away  from 
the  book  of  life,  viz.  by  omitting  to  use  "  a  faithful  and 
literal  version  of  the  Psalms  " — seems  never  to  have 
suggested  itself  to  the  church  of  Scotland  in  her  earliest 
and  best  days.  Take  for  example  the  51st  Psalm,  sung 
by  the  martyr  Wishart,  shortly  before  he  suffered  death.* 
As  it  stands  in  our  Bibles,  it  consists  of  nineteen 
verses  and  fifty-three  lines  :  as  sung  by  Wishart  there 
are  twenty  verses  and  one  hundred  and  forty  lines. 
Here  is  verse  7  :  "  Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be 
clean ;  wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow/'  The 
martyr  sung  it  as  follows  : 

This  isope  is  humility, 

Right  law  intill  ascence. 

The  snaw  sa  -white  in  all  degree 

Betokens  Innocence. 

For  an  this  twa  do  govern  me 

I  shall  do  nane  offence. 

To  thy  mercy  will  I  go. 

The  whole  nineteen  verses  are  paraphrased  in  this  style 
— the  which,  if  found  in  the  Presbyterian  Psalmody, 
would  be  denounced  as  exposing  its  authors  to  a  degree 
of  impiety  little  short  of  that  of  "  Nadab  and  Abihu," 
&c.  In  truth,  as  compared  with  Wishart' s  broad  para- 
phrase, Dr.  Watts  has  given  quite  a  close  versification! 
See  Watts'  Psalm  51  for  the  proof. 

And  when  we  look  into  the  earliest  metre  Psalms 
adopted  by  the  church  of  Scotland,  we  are  at  once  struck 
with  the  entire  absence  of  anything  like  "  a  fair  and 
literal  version/'  The  versification  of  Sternhold  and 
Hopkins  was  introduced,  as  we  are  told  by  Dr.  M'Crie 
in  his  Life  of  Knox,  "  at  the  establishment  of  the  Re- 
formation, "  and  "  was  in  general  use  till  the  time  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly."  Of  course,  we  have  only  to 
consult  Sternhold  and  Hopkins  to  know  whether  that 
church  adopted  the  principle  of  these  brethren.  That 
*  See  Howie's  Scots  Worthies,  p.  46. 


WHAT   BONGS    ARE   INSPIRED.  41 

they  did  not  is  conceded  by  nil  parties.      In  his  report  to 

the  Associate  Synod  on  the  "improvenu  nt  of  Psalmody/1* 

Dr.  Beveridge,    Professor  of  Theology  at  Xenia,  speaks 

Stcrnholdand  Hopkins  as  follows:  "While  in.  torn* 

v  the  adherence  to  the  original  is  nt  least  as  exact 

i  onr  present  version,  in  other  oases  great  liberty  hat 
I-  >  n  taken,"  and  the  versification  is  "far  removed  from 

thing  like  n  close  translation."  Thus  we  learn  from 
the  best  authority,  that  the  Psalmody  of  the  church  of 
S  bland  in  her  purest  days  of  reformation,  and  in  the 
period  of  her  martyrs,  was  only  "in  some  INSTANCES  "  as 

i  in  adherence  to  the  original  as  that  by  House,  while 

in  others  it  was  no  version  at  all,  "nor  any  thing  like  it." 

T<>  prove  the   correctness  of  Dr.  B's.    statements,  we 

might    cite  any    number  of   pages   from    that   ancient 

mody.  For  the  present,  two  examples  must  suffice. 
The  first  is  in  Psalm  125  ;  1. 

PB08M  YMB&  STERNITOT.n    AND    HOPKINS. 

that    trust   in   the  Lord,     Those  who  do  put  their  confidence . 
shall  be  aa    Mount   Zion,   which     I  rd  our  God  only 

e*nnot  be  removed,  but  ahideth     And  flee  to  him  for  their  defen&e 

In  all  tht  ir  m  >  d  and  m 

ir  faith  U  wire  rtill  to  endure 
Gro\  'M  (hi  com*  r  atone. 

Mored  with  none  ill,  but  standeth 

Bt31 
Steadfast  like  to  the  Mount  Sion. 

I  tnce  will  suffice  to  satisfy  any  one  whether  this 

b    "a  correct  and  faithful  version  or  translation  \"    Yet 

»   brethren  in  his  book  on  Psalmody,  calls  it 

full  version,"  and  quotes  others  who  term  it  -an 

lent  translation/1  and  "  the  word  of  God  !  M     Thus 

they  place  this  human  paraphrase  or  explanation   on  a 

with  u  the  w<»rd  of  God  !  " 

Our  second  example  is  from  Psalm  1  :  1,2. 

Ml"l  I)    ANI>     H0M  I 

"Why  1     Why  'li»i 

•  a  vaiu  thing.      What  r  I 

Why  did  th 

*  Evangelical  K 
1 


42  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

PROSE  VERSION.  STERNHOLD    AND    HOPKINS. 

The   kings   of    the   earth    set     The  kings  and  rulers  of  the  earth 
themselves,  and  the   rulers   take     Conspire  and  all  are  bent 
counsel     together,    against     the     Against   the   Lord   and  Christ  his 
Lord;  and  against  his  anointed.         Sonne, 

Which  he  amongst  us  sent. 

Now  we  respectfully  submit  whether  on  the  principles 
adopted  by  our  brethren,  this  be  not  the  grievous  crime 
of  "adding  to  the  word  of  God."  Observe  here  the 
identical  sin  for  which  they  so  eloquently  denounce  our 
Psalmody,  viz.  u  the  gospel  turn/'  by  which  the 
Psalmist  is  represented  as  speaking  of  "  Christ  the  cor- 
ner stone/'  &c,  in  the  common  language  of  the  Christian 
as  distinguished  from  the  Jew  ! 

What  floods  of  ink  have  been  expended  in  heaping 
abuse  upon  Dr.  "Watts,  for  the  very  thing  which  here  had 
the  sanction  and  approbation  of  the  purest  church  of  the 
Reformation,  and  in  the  days  of  her  greatest  glory.  If 
these  brethren  will  point  out  in  our  system  of  Psalmody 
any  more  gross  and  daring  attempt  to  "  convert  David 
into  a  Christian/'  viz.  "  Levitical  ceremonies  and  Hebrew 
forms  of  speech  changed  into  the  worship  of  the  gospel 
and  explained  in  the  language  of  our  time  and  nation,"* 
they  are  welcome  to  denounce  us  as  worse  than  the 
Scottish  church  before  the  days  of  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly. So  evident  is  it  that  the  fundamental  principle 
of  our  authors  is  itself  a  modern  "  human  invention." 

2.  A  second  preliminary  remark  : 

These  brethren,  notwithstanding  their  harsh  language, 
do  not  practically  adopt  their  own  theory.  They  do  not 
act  as  though  they  believed  us  Presbyterians  guilty  habit- 
ually of  crimes  not  unlike  those  of  "  Uzza,  Nadab  and 
Abihu,"  &c.  On  the  contrary,  they  often  speak  of  us 
as  a  prominent  branch  of  the  Christian  church,  of  "  in- 
tellectual, moral  and  religious  worth,  extended  activity, 
great  resources  and  happy  influence. "f  They  are  always 
willing  to  receive  the  members  of  our  congregations  into 

•  Dr.  Watts. 

-j-  M'Master'fl  Apology,  p.  4. 


WHAT   SONGS   AIM-    INSPIRED.  43 

theirs,  nor  do  they  ordinarily  require  any  expression  of 

of  ringing  hymns,  nor  b  renunciation 

of  prival  -     n  the  Bubject,  provided  they  give  no 

trouble.      Nay  more,   they  will    reoeive  our  ministers, 
t  such  corrupt  principles,  and  even  install  them 
in  their  chair*  of  Theology.*     Surely,  if  these  brethren 
really  thought  that  we  Presbyterians  had  fallen  bo  griev- 
ously u,  is  their  theory  teaches, 
they  would  not  thus  deal  with  us !     As  to  the  thousands 
eminently  pious  persons  who  have   "fallen  asleep'1 
with  the  language  of  our  Psalmody  on  their  lips,  we  leave 
thren  to  decide  what  has  become  of  them  ! 
With  these  preliminary  remarks,  we  proceed  to  demon- 
strate certain  omissions  from  the  "  inspired  Psalmody." 
They  have   "laid  asid\    as  useless"  the  20th  verse  of 
the  72d  Psalm  :  "  The  prayers  of  David  the  son  of  J 
are  ended."     This  verse  is  excluded  from  Rouse.     Nor 
can  it  be  truly  alleged  that  it  does  not  form  a  part  of  the 
inspired    Psalter.     There   is  some  difference  of  opinion 
among  <>ur  most  eminent  Oriental  scholars,  as  to  the  re- 
it  which  this  verse  hear-  to  what  precedes,  whether  as 
the  close  of  the  72d  Psalm,  or  rather  as  a  general  j! 
of  the  second  book,  or  second  leading  division  into  which 
the  Psalms  have  been  distinguished.     All  agree,  how- 
ever, that  this  verse  is  a  constituent  part  of  the  words  of 
inspiration,  and  of  the  sacred  songs  of  Zion.     It  is  found 
in  the  original  Hebrew,  in  the  (J reek  Beptuagint,  and  in 
— thfj   two  latter  of  whieh  use,  in-' 
■oyer*  of  David,  the  terms  humnoi  and  laudes — the 
-       of  David. 
i>r.    Addison   Alexander,  in  his   ^Commentary  <>n  the 

1'        -."  thinks  it  most  probable  that  these  words  belong 

'  wubdivisum  of  the  whole  collection. 
A-  Lation  to  the  verses  immediately  preced 

is  that  ri  ••  forms  no  nail  of  til-  Ti'd 

to  the  wb  r  b<mk  preoeding." 

*  The   MM   of  Pr  H  Idie,  formerly  of  Alle^hein 

.-.'  of  Dr.  P: 


44  LETTERS   ON    PSALMODY. 

Dr.  A.,  however,  is  far  from  excluding  this  verse,  as 
Rouse  does,  from  the  inspired  Psalms.  So  also  the 
learned  Home,  in  his  "  Introduction/'  gives  it  as  his 
judgment,  that  this  verse  " simply  means  the  Psalms  of 
David  in  that  (the  2d)  book/'  or  general  division.  But 
he  quotes  Bishop  Horsely  as  judging  it  to  be  "the  close 
of  the  particular  Psalm  in  question,  viz.  the  72d." 
"The  sense/'  says  Bishop  H.,  "is  that  David  the  son 
of  Jesse  had  nothing  to  pray  for  or  to  wish  beyond  the 
great  things  described  in  this  Psalm.  Nothing/'  adds 
Bishop  H.,  "  can  be  more  animated  than  this  conclu- 
sion. Having  described  the  blessings  of  Messiah's  reign, 
he  closes  with  this  magnificent  doxology  : 

Blessed  be  Jehovah  God, 

God  of  Israel  alone  performing  wonders ; 

And  blessed  be  his  name  of  glory, 

And  let  his  glory  lill  the  whole  earth. 

Amen  and  Amen. 

Finished  are  the  prayers  of  David,  the  son  of  Jesse. 

Scott,  Henry,  Poole,  and  other  judicious  commenta- 
tors, agree  with  this  eloquent  tribute  of  Bishop  Horsely. 

Here,  then,  on  the  theory  of  these  brethren,  is  a 
plain  and  inexcusable  mutilation  of  the  word  of  God. 
They  have  no  more  right  to  exclude  this  verse  from 
"God's  Psalm  book,"  than  any  other  verse;  and  it  is 
equally  an  "impious  license"  to  lay  this  verse  "aside 
as  useless,"  as  to  exclude  any  other  part  of  the  Psalms  ! 
Thus  they  renounce  their  whole  theory  as  worthless — 
they  treat  it  with  respect  only  so  far  as  suits  their  con- 
venience !  They  expose  themselves  to  the  tremendous 
doom  of  him  who  "  taketh  away  from  the  word  of  life  !" 
No  author  of  eminence  has  ever  questioned  the  right  of 
this  verse  to  be  deemed  a  component  part  of  the  inspired 
record.  By  what  authority,  then,  have  these  brethren 
ventured  to  exclude  it  from  the  songs  which  they  profess 
to  regard  as  bearing  the  great  seal  of  God  Almighty  as 
the  perfect  and  perpetual  Psalm  book  of  his  church,  "to 
which  nothing  must  be  added,  and  from  which  nothing 


what  BONGS  aim:  inspired.  48 

in  of  the  infinite  displeasure  of  the 
Autl. 

Anothi  lission  : 

thren  have  ';  laid  aside  as  useless"  most  of 
the  titles  of  the  Psalms,  which  often  shed  bo  much  I 
upon  their  matter.    Thai  these  inscriptions  are  of  canoni- 
cal or  inspired  authority,  is  fully  established  by    Dr. 

r.     In  the  preface  to  his  Commentary,  he  n 
to  "the  Btrennons  attempts  which  have  been  made  by 
!  to  discredit  these  titles  as  spurious  addi- 
tions of  later  date."      "  These  attempts,"  he  adds,   u  are 
defeated  by  the  fact  that  they  are  found  in  the  Hebrew 
.  as  far  as  we  can  trace  its  history,  not  as  addenda, 
but  as  integral  parti  of  the  composition.     And  such  in- 
dications of  the  author  and  the  subject  at  the  commence- 
ment of  a  composition,  are  familiar  both  to  classical  and 
Oriental  usage.      That  the  truth  of  these  inscriptions  may 
in  every  case  be  vindicated,"  &c.      And  in  his  note  on 
the  title  of  Psalm  3,  he  adds,   "This  is  not  a  mere  in- 
scription, but  apart  ofth*  text  and  inseparabi  from  ft, 
SO  far    IS  We    can    trace    it-  history.      It  was   an    ancient 
usage,  both  among  classical  and  Oriental  writers,  for  the 
author  to  introduce  his  own  name  into  the  first  sentence 
of  his  composition.     The  titles  of  the  Psalms  ought  not, 
therefore,  to  have  been  printed  in  a  different  type,  i  r 
Hhing  added  to   the  text.      In   all    Hebrew    mauu- 
oontinues  Dr.  A.,  "  they  bear  the  same  relation 
to  the  body  of  the  Psalm  that  the  inscriptions  in  the 
pr<  pheta  or  in  Paul's  epistles  bear  to  the  substance  of 
position/1     The  testimony  of  this  learned  and 
shed  scholar  is  summarily  as  follow-  : 
1.  The  titles  of  the  Psalms  are  parr-  of  the  inspired 

text.      Yet  they  are  excluded  from  the  Psalmody  oft] 
brethren,  and  thus  they  "lay  aside  ai  '  a  large 

gs  which  Q       _        •      is  church. 
"2.   Dr.  A  i-  that  these  titles  bear  the  same 

relation  to  the  Psalms  as  the  inscriptions  in  the  pro] 
and  in  Paul'-  bear  to  the  writings  tic 


46  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

i.  e.,  they  belong  to  the  Divine  record,  were  given  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Yet  they  are  rejected  from  the  Psalm- 
ody employed  by  these  brethren. 

But  we  have  other  testimony.  The  learned  and  dis- 
tinguished Home,  in  his  "  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 
the  Scriptures/'  whilst  he  candidly  admits  "  that  many 
of  the  titles  prefixed  to  the  Psalms  are  of  very  question- 
able authority,  as  not  being  extant  in  the  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts" yet  concedes  that  we  uhave  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  very  many  of  them  are  not  canonical  parts  of  the 
Psalms/'*  Thus  Home  concurs  with  Alexander,  that 
the  titles  which  u  are  extant  in  the  best  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts" are  of  undoubted  canonical  authority.  Why, 
then,  are  they  nearly  all  "  laid  aside  as  useless"  by  those 
who  insist  upon  "  a  fair  and  correct  version  of  the  whole 
book  as  of  Divine  appointment  !"f  Is  not  this  a  daring 
attempt  to  be  wiser  than  God  ? 

The  number  of  Psalms  having  titles  is  one  hundred 
and  twenty-five. J  These  inscriptions  in  the  original 
Hebrew  are  incorporated  in  the  sacred  text,  and  each 
title  forms  a  part  or  the  whole  of  the  first  sentence  or 
verse  of  each  Psalm.  Ouly  ten  of  these  titles  are  versi- 
fied by  Rouse,  and  the  other  one  hundred  and  fifteen  form 
a  body  of  inspired  matter  equal  to  fifteen  songs  of  praise 
of  the  size  of  Psalm  1,  all  of  which  is  rejected  by  these 
brethren  !  In  all  these  instances  a  verse,  or  part  of  a 
verse  of  "  God's  Psalm  book"  is  excluded  from  the  posi- 
tion where  Infinite  Wisdom  placed  it !  And  is  this  the 
way  in  which  these  brethren  observe  "the  Divine  ap- 
pointment of  the,  whole  book  to  be  sung  ?"  From 
Sabbath  to  Sabbath  they  use  a  mutilated  versification 
of  "  the  Holy  Spirit's  Psalms  !"  Would  they  dare  to 
exclude  the  inscriptions  of  Isaiah  and  Paul  ?  Let  any 
one  read  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  omitting  the  first  verse, 
which  Home  says  is  "the  general  title  of  the  book  •"  or 

*  Vol.  4,  pp.  105,  106. 
f  M'Master's  Apology. 
X  Home,  vol.  4,  p.  105. 


AVHAT    SONGS    ARE    INSPIRED.  47 

lot  him  read  die  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  u  lay  ' 

tin.-  first  verse  or  title,  and  see  what  §ad  work 
it  makes  with  the  inspired  record  I     Yet  this  very  thing 
these  brethren  do  with  nearly  all  the  titles  of  the  Psalms. 
Thus  it  is  obvious  that  they  have  adopted  ■  principle  in 
•  Divine  appointment  of  the  whole  book  of 
ft   Ims,"  which  they  habitually  violate  in  their  practice. 
Of  course,  their  arguments  will  have  little  weight  with 
rians,  until  we  discover  that  their  practice  is  in 
rarity  with  their  settled  principles. 
It  may  be  supposed  that  the  argument  from  the  omis- 
sion of  the  inspired  titles,  has  met  with  violent  opposi- 
tion.     '-The  title  of  a  song,  we  are  told,  and  the  song 
If,  are  distinct  things  and  for  distinct  uses  ;   this  dis- 
tinction is  well  understood  and  universally  observed."* 
Ihit  this  is  surely  a  very  flimsy  sort  of  argument.    "  The  ti- 
tle i  'id  the  song  itself  are  distinct  things" — very 
well.     The  title  of  a  prophecy  and  the  prophecy  itself  are 
lly  distinct  things  ;  and  the  title  of  an  epistle  and  the 
3  •  :e  itself  are  also  distinct  things.    Therefore  the  practice 
of  including  along  with  the  text  and  reading  the  title  to 
the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  of  which  Home  says  "  the  first 
the    general    title,"  is   a?i   absurd   usagt  ! 
h's  title  should  of  course  be  "laid  asM  »  !" 
I    so  of  Paul's   epistles.     The  practice  of  including 
-  contained  in  the  first  verses  as  parts  of  the  epis- 
3  a  portion  of  the  inspired  text,  is  also 
srf  absurd  thing  !     We  take  it  for  granted,  theref 
when  these  brethren  read  the  prophecies  and  • 
they  dn>p  all  the  inspired  titles!     This  would   be 
h   and   Paul   only  as  tiny  treat   Pavid  and 
who  spake  by  the  Holy  Qhost  V3 
it  is  further  objected,  that  "it  i<  not  certain  by  what 
authority  many  of.  the  titles  were  made."*     Supp  isethis 
to  1               what  follows?     That  all,  both  those  which 
\   authority,  as  well  as  those   which   arc 
doubtful,  must  be  excluded  from  the  sacred  text  I     Sure- 

*  Preacher,  September,  1S52,  edited  by  Dr.  Kerr. 


48  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

ly  not.  The  learned  Home  admits  that  "  some  of  them 
are  undoubtedly  not  of  equal  antiquity  with  the  inspired 
text" — and  the  proof  is,  "they  are  not  extant  in  the 
Hebrew  manuscripts."  Here,  then,  is  a  valid  and  most 
safe  test  to  distinguish  the  inspired  titles  from  those  not 
of  Divine  origin.  And  as  Home  further  informs  us  that 
one  hundred  and  twenty-five  of  the  Psalms  have  "  titles 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures/'  only  twenty-five  being  with- 
out them,  is  it  a  good  and  valid  reason  for  rejecting  them 
all,  either  to  be  read  or  sung,  because  some  of  them  are 
of  "  questionable  authority  Y* 

Is  this  a  good  and  sufficient  reason  for  repudiating  the 
whole  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  titles,  as  well  the  few 
spurious  as  the  many  inspired,  as  "  parts  of  the  Psalms  !" 
Truly  this  evinces  most  extraordinary  respect  for  the 
productions  of  inspiration.  Dr.  Alexander,  however, 
gives  no  intimation  of  such  a  distinction,  but  recognizes 
all  the  inscriptions  as  parts  of  the  inspired  text,  as  really 
as  the  inscriptions  to  the  prophecies  and  epistles;  and  I 
strongly  suspect  that  Dr.  A.,  who  is  universally  acknow- 
ledged to  be  one  of  the  most  profound  and  accomplished 
Hebrew  scholars  in  this  or  any  other  country,  is  right, 
and  that  Home  is  mistaken  in  this  matter. 

We  have  thus  the  deliberate  and  well  considered  judg- 
ment of  scholars  of  the  highest  eminence,  affirming  that 
many  of  the  titles  are  "  canonical  parts  of  the  Psalms  ?* 
and  that  "we  have  no  reason  to  suppose"  the  contrary. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  if  "  the  whole  book  of  Psalms 
is  of  Divine  appointment"  to  be  sung,  these  brethren 
must  sing  the  canonical  titles,  or  be  convicted  of  taking 
away  from,  or  "  laying  aside  as  useless/'  parts  of  the 
songs  of  inspiration. 

Not  the  least  curious  feature  of  this  whole  subject  re- 
mains to  be  noticed.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  Bouse  has 
embodied  in  his  verse  ten  of  the  titles  of  the  Psalms. 
Thus  it  happens  that  the  very  men  who  treat  with  the 
utmost  scorn  the  idea  of  singing  these  inscriptions,  are 
found   doing  this  very  thing  I     This  is  clearly  proved 


WHAT   BOVQfl  ABS  INSPIRED.  49 

by  the  distinguished  Home,     He  pays:  u  The  untitled 
Lms  in  our  Etnglish  version  amount  to  thirty-seven  j 

but  many  a/  them   are  Hallelujah  Psalms,*  which  have 
•iption$}  because  the  venerable  translators 

have  rendered  the  Hebrew  word  Hallelujah,  by  the  ex- 
1  Praise  the  Lord,'  which  they  have  mad\  a 
the  Pudm,"  tee.  From  this  it  appears,  that 
.  ing  the  Hebrew  original,  the  translators  have  em- 
bodied the  Hebrew  titles  of  "  many  of  the  Psalms"  in 
the  English  version,  rendering  it.  "  Praise  the  Lord/' 
N  >W  what  is  true  of  our  translation,  is  also  true  of 
Bona  'a  versification,  as  any  one  can  see  for  himself. 
Hence  it  follows  that  these  brethren  themselves  do  what 
they  regard  as  so  very  absurd,  viz.  they  sing  the  titles  of 
at  least  ten  of  the  Psalms  1  Home  also  says  of  the  Hal- 
lelujah Psalms  :  u  To  ten  Psalms  is  prefixed  the  title 
1  Hallelujah,'  which,  as  already  intimated,  forms  taut 
of  the  first  verse  in  our  English  translation,  [and  in 
Rouse'-  version  also,]  and  is  rendered,  Praise  the  Lord." 
Thus  these  brethren  do  the  very  thing  which  they  hold 
in  so  much  contempt,  viz.  they  >ing  certain  sacred  songs, 
"commencing  with  their  title* I"  But  if  it  be  true,  as 
one  writer  affirms,  that  u these  titles  were  never  intended 
to  he  tung;"^  then  to  this  extent  their  worship  is  with- 
out Divine  authority  !  In  addition  they  assume  that  cer- 
tain portions  (the  titles,)  of  about  one  hundred  psalms, 
are  unsuitable  for  Divine  worship.  They  presume  to  ex- 
clude and  "lay  aside  as  useless/'  parts  of  "  the  songs 
composed  in  heaven,"  and  affirm  that  it  is  perfectly  right 
to  do  so.  Did  our  church  ever  take  such  strong  ground 
as  ti 

But  in  regard  to  those  title*  which  our  brethren  sing, 
it  ha<  been  said  that  in  the  original  Hebrew,  u  Hallelu- 
jah "  "is  clearly  a  part  of  the  Psalm/1  P>ut  this  is  no 
more  true  of  the  title  "  Hallelujah/'  than  of  all  the  other 

*  Hon  TTallelujah  Psalms  are  :  IOC,  111,  112,  113,  135, 

150. 

Dr.  Kerr. 

'o 


50  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

titles.  Every  one  who  can  read  the  Hebrew,  knows  that 
this  title  stands  in  the  precise  position  toward  the  Halle- 
lujah Psalms  that  all  the  other  titles  occupy  toward  their 
respective  songs  of  praise,  i.  e.  they  stand  as  part  of  the 
first  verse,  or  compose  the  whole  of  it. 

We  have  then  the  decision  of  Dr.  Alexander,  that  to 
omit  the  titles  is  "to  mutilate  the  sacred  text."  Tholuck 
and  Hengstenberg  take  the  same  ground.  These  inscrip- 
tions existed  when  the  Septuagint  was  formed,  two  hun- 
dred and  eighty  years  before  the  Advent,  and  were  even 
then  venerable  for  antiquity.  Kitto  receives  all  of  them 
(i  except  when  there  is  strong  internal  evidence  against 
them/'*  Indeed  the  evidence  in  their  favor  is  so  conclu- 
sive, that  these  brethren  themselves  admit  them  as  in- 
spired, except  when  they  are  engaged  in  controversy. 
Thus  a  correspondent  of  one  of  their  leading  magazines 
says  :  "  The  titles  of  the  Psalms  were  written  not  by  the 
persons  who  collected  them,  but  by  the  sacred  poets  them- 
selves. A  similar  practice  obtained  among  the  ancient 
Arabian  and  Syrian  poets,  of  prefixing  their  names  to 
their  songs.  The  same  thing  occurs  in  the  writings  of 
the  prophets,  e.  g.,  the  prediction  of  Balaam,  the  psalm 
of  Habakkuk,  and  the  song  of  Hezekiah.  Numbers  24, 
Habakkuk  3,  Isaiah  38.  That  David  followed  this  cus- 
tom, at  least  occasionally,  is  evident  from  2  Samuel  22, 
compared  with  Psalm  18.  We  may  also  with  great  confi- 
dence, refer  to  him  those  titles,  e.  g.,  Psalms  22,  56, 
which  are  poetical  in  form,  and  describe  the  subject  of 
the  Psalm. "f  As  to  the  suitableness  of  the  matter  of  the 
titles,  if  that  were  an  open  question  with  these  brethren, 
it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  many  of  these  titles  are 
quite  as  suitable  for  song  as  some  other  parts  of  the  col- 
lection.    For  example,  Psalm  102:'aa  prayer  of  the 

*  Biblical  Cyclopedia.  A  high  authority  adds  :  "  Editorial  audacity 
or  ignorance  has  sometimes  gone  so  far  as  to  omit  the  titles  or  inscrip- 
tions of  the  Psalms  as  forming  no  part  of  the  text/' — Biblical  Reper- 
tory, April,  1859. 

f  Christian  Instructor,  edited  by  Dr.  Dales,  of  Philadelphia,  March, 
1S55. 


what   BONGS   ABE   IN6PIRBD.  51 

d  be  ia  overwhelmed,  and  pouretih  out  liis 

complaint  before  the  Lord/'     So  also  Psalm  18,  51,  &o. 

We  are  thus  brought  to  the  conclusion,  that  most  of 

the  :  •  ins]  ired  portions  of  the  Psalms,"  originally 

iiposed   by   the   sacred    poets    themselves."     'J  i. 

brethren    have    incorporated    at    least    ten    of  them   in 

their  Psalmody,  and  they  thus  recognize  them  ae 

aent  parts  of  "the  songs  composed  in  heaven,"    " 

whoL  book,"  which  they  say  is  "  of  Divine  appointment" 

the  unchangeable  and    perpetual  Psalmody    of    the 

church.      By  what  authority  they  venture  to  4*  lay  aside 

as  useless"  the  other  one  hundred  and  fifteen  titles  as 

"not  intended   to  be   sung,"   every  one  must  determine 

for  himself.     It  will  require  something  more  than  angry 

exclamation   to  prove  that  they  do  not,  in  this  thin;:,  lay 

:i  their  weapons  and  virtually  come  over  to  the   I'     B- 

rian  camp.     The  titles  which   are  excluded  would 

form  not  less  than   fort;,  iga  of  the  salm 

117.     How  then  can  they  profess  to  employ  "the  whole 

bonk 

of  this  Letter,  let  us  at  the  safe 

]    ution  of  the  Presbyterian  church.     Our  principl 
alreadj  intimated,  affirms  that   "the  whole  word  of  G<  d 
is  of  use  to  direct  us  in  a  well  as  in  prayer," and 

that  in  theN<  w  T  stami  ai  disp  usation  we  are  not  limited 
recise  Psalmody  of  the  Jews  in  ei 
-  ntiment,  &c. 
\\>  maintain  that  from  the  rich,  abundant  and  Divine 
3  provided  by  the  Head  of  the  church   in   the 
book   of  Psalms  and  in  other  portions  of  the  Scri]  I 

-Lurch,  by  her  highest  ecclesiastical  auth< 
authorized  to  Belect,  arrange  and   introduce  all  suitable 
for  this  precious  part  of  Divine  worship.     We 
ms,  and   agree   that  - 
ran  be  i  i  g  and  gl 

k  its  Divine  excellencies  and  beauti<         1 
it  nc  jim  nr  i  i  say  of  p 

I  ample,  that    th  Well 


52  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

suited  for  Divine  worship  under  the  present  dispensation 
as  some  other  parts  of  Scripture,  just  as  we  think  scarce- 
ly any  language  too  exalted  to  describe  the  Divine  excel- 
lencies of  the  Bible,  which  we  love  and  reverence  as  the 
text  book  of  the  pulpit,  and  to  be  read  in  public  wor- 
ship ;  but  there  are  passages  in  those  Scriptures  which 
no  man  of  common  sense  would  venture  to  take  as  his 
text,  or  even  to  read  from  the  pulpit !  Some  texts,  for 
example,  in  the  Levitical  law,  and  which  were  'read  to 
the  Jews  in  their  worship.  Nor  is  it  any  reproach  to  the 
word  of  God  to  say  so — because  though  "  all  Scripture 
was  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for 
doctrine,  reproof,  instruction  in  righteousness/'  &c,  yet 
the  several  portions  were  designed  by  InfiniteWisdom  for 
different  uses  in  the  church,  and  her  judicatories  and  min- 
isters have  abundant  instruction  in  the  sacred  pages  them- 
selves, and  by  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  guide 
them  aright  in  the  employment  of  the  different  portions 
for  their  Divinely  appointed  purposes  and  objects. 


WHAT   BONOS   ABE    INSPIRED.  53 


LETTER  V. 

v     ••  p  u:  LPHH  L8E,M    EOT    A     VERSION,     OB    TRANSLATION  —  NOT 
••\>    LITERAL    A.8    nil:    LAWS     OP     VERSIPICATIOS     WILL     ALLOW* — 
A    i.i   LI    I     \i     n:i:    HI8TORT    OF    8COTTI8B    PSALMODT    PRIOfl    rO    tin: 
PUBLP    kTIOH     OP    BOUSE —  BTERNHOLD      AND     BOPKINS  — ITS    I 
lw  -     -     LNB    "  008PEL   1  ORNSw-  -  1  ffl    Ll  I  - 

A8SEBIBLT    OP    uir.    CHURCH    OP    SCOTLAND    BEPRE8ENT     BO     !1      it    A 
PARAPH!  LLLED     HORN     THAN    TWENTY     TIMES,     Bl         EOT 

ON-  »— VARIOUS    OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED —  CONCLUSIONS — 

THK    REAL    QUESTION — "WHETHER    siiai.I.  WJ     -  :'s    PARA- 

PHRASE   OR    WATTS1    PARAPHRASE" — THE  PRINCIP1 

AND     FAITIIFl'L     VERSION     AS     ALONE     01      AUTHORITT,     A      MODERN 
INVENTION. 

My  DEAR  Sir: — It  has  now  been  demonstrated,  if 
we  mistake  Dot,  that  "the  inspired  Psalmody"  of  th 
brethren,  "their  literal  and  faithful  version"  (or  trans- 
lation is  a  patchwork  paraphrase,  embracing  an  amount 
of  "  the  mere  effusions  of  men"  sufficiently  large  to  make 
in  ti.  ite  at  least  fifteen  entire  "  songs  of  praise'1 

of  the  Bize  of  Psalm  1,  and  not  less  than  /  com- 

plete Psalms  of  the  size  of  Psalm  117.  Yet  all  this  is 
in  constant  use  by  those  who,  with  the  language  of  fear- 
ful warning  on  their  lips,  tell  us  "  we  have  NO  AUTHOR- 
ITY to  use  the  productions  of  uninspired  men  !"*  All  this 
is  dignified  with  the  titles  "  the  Holy  Spirit's  Psalms," 
and  "the  ward  of  Gody  for  the  same  reason  that  the 
prose  translation  of  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God!" 
This  u  full  and  faithful  version"  (or  translation)  is  af- 
firmed to  be  imperfect  only  "  as  tne  prose  translation  is 
tc.,  \v.  Jet  where  in  the  "  prose  translation  of  the 
can  these  brethren  find  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
four  com]  a  added  to  the  inspired  text?  Where 
will  they  matter  and  language  of  "mere human 
invention1  at  to  compose  fifteen  whole  Psalms 
sueh  as  Psalm  I,  or  forty-five  Buch  as  Psalm  117.  The 
thing  is  impossible,  for  the  whole  Protestant  world  ag 

■  .  i  .'■  . 
6* 


54  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

that  the  English  version  of  the  Bible  is  distinguished  for 
its  remarkable  literalness,  accuracy,  and  closeness  with 
the  Hebrew ;  and  if  "  susceptible  of  improvement"  at 
all,  it  is  only  as  the  works  of  all  men  are  so;  from  the 
very  nature  of  man  as  an  imperfect  creature. 

It  has  moreover  been  shown,  that  by  rejecting  verse 
20  of  Psalm  72,  along  with  most  of  the  inspired  titles, 
they  "  lay  aside  as  useless"  a  large  amount  of  inspired 
matter  originally  indited  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  no  doubt 
sung  in  the  worship  of  the  church  under  a  former  dis- 
pensation. Yet  we  are  assured  these  brethren  sing  "  in- 
spired songs  only,"  "  the  book  from  heaven  !"* 

The  array  of  facts  and  quotations  in  previous  Letters, 
also  sheds  light  upon  the  question,  "  Did  the  church  of 
Scotland,  when  she  authorized  '  Rouse's  paraphrase/ 
consider  it  l  a  literal  and  faithful  translation  V  "  If  she 
did,  that  venerable  church  certainly  made  a  most  singular 
and  unaccountable  mistake.  If  we  adopt  the  views  of 
these  brethren,  that  church  gave  Rouse  their  sanction 
"  as  a  literal  or  correct  translation  of  the  original." 
tl  And  it  is  still  retained,  we  are  told,  because  as  a  true 
and  literal  translation,  it  is  decidedly  superior  to  any 
other  in  the  English  language. "f  Again,  "it  is  framed 
on  the  principle  of  a  translation  of  the  original  as  literal 
as  the  laws  of  versification  will  allow."  J 

Now  these  are  certainly  extraordinary  assertions.  Take 
for  instance  almost  any  of  the  examples  so  readily  occur- 
ring : 

PROSE    VERSION.  ROUSE. 

But  overthrew  Pharaoh  and     But  overwhelm'd  and  lost 
his  host  in  the  Red  Sea.  Was  proud  king  Pharaoh, 

With  all  his  mighty  host, 
And  chariots  also. 

Now  can  any  intelligent  person  imagine  that  the  church 
of  Scotland  really  adopted  such  paraphrases  as  this  with 
the  conviction  that  they  are  "  a  true  and  literal  version  or 

•  United  Presbyterian,  of  Cincinnati, 
f  Preacher,  December  13,  1844. 
J  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  117. 


WH  -    ARE    INSPIRED.  55 

translation — superior  to  any  other  in  the  English  lan- 

[fl  it  conceivable  that  thai  venerable  church  now 

se  paraphrase  u  ss  literal  aa  the  laws  of 

id  will  allow  1"  ::   It'  these  brethren  cannot  frame 

any  m  ire  closely  literal  versification  of    the  foregoing 

Terse,  let  them  go  to  Dr.  Watts,  who  has  it  as  follows: 

]>ut  cruel  Pharaoh  there 

"With  all  his  host  ho  drowned. 

So  also  in  verse  10  of  the  same  Psalm  : 

r.  vkrsiov.  BOVSa. 

To  him  that  smote  Egypt  in     To  him  that  Egypt  smote, 
their  first  born.  Who  did  hi*  jnettagi  weomj 

And  in  h  it  anger  hoi 

Lid  kill  all  their  first-born. 

This  is  no  translation  at  all,  but  a  broad  paraphrase. 
Dr.  Watts  has  a  much  more  "  literal  version  ?' 

lie  smote  their  first  born  BODJj 
The  Sower  of  Egypt,  dead. 

The--'  are  giyen  as  mere  Bpecimens,  but  they  are  faith- 
ful illnstrations  of  the  power  of  prejudice  to  blind  the 
mind.-  of  even  good  men.f 

In  the  light  of  many  such  curious  facts  as  these, 
we  proceed  to  examine  the  several  acts  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  church  of  Scotland  from  1644  down  to 
1650,  wh<n  what  is  called  kk  House's  version'1  was  for- 
mal! I  and  recommended  to  "  kirks  and  fami- 
\n  i  the  first  glance  at  these  acts  establishes  the 
{act,  that  they  uniformly  call  House  not  a  r>  nion  \  or  trans- 
lation I  but  only  a  M  paraphrase/1  In  these  official  de- 
Hud  such  phraseology  a-,  u  paraphrase  of  the 
Psalms'1 — ii  new  paraphrase" — "  our  own  paraphrase" — 
'■  t.\  snd  revising  the  paraphrase" — "considering 
tie    I  ■" — u  authorizing  said  paraphrsi 

*  Al 

iblished  in  Philadelphia  by  Dr.  Cooper  and  otherf, 
Ihere  in  our  •  Matter  prorided  for  us 

I  ;•■  li In  >  .'  /.  p.  1".     B     -e, 


56  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

— and  finally  in  1650,  u.  approving  and  ordaining  said 
paraphrase,  and  no  other,  to  be  used  throughout  this  king- 
dom," &c.  In  these  various  acts  of  the  Scottish  Assembly, 
the  term  "  paraphrase"  is  employed  not  less  than  twenty 
times,  and  not  once  is  the  system  called  a  version  !  Does  all 
this  look  as  though  they  considered  it  "  a  literal  and  faithful 
version  or  translation  of  the  original  ?"  If  such  men 
as  Alexander  Henderson,  Rutherford,  Gillespie,  &c, 
knew  the  meaning  of  their  mother  tongue,  they  were 
surely  never  guilty  of  such  blunders.  In  scores  of  in- 
stances a  mere  school  boy  could  frame  a  more  literal  yet 
equally  smooth  versification. 

To  weaken  the  force  of  this  evidence,  it  has  been  said 
that  by  the  term  paraphrase,  the  Scottish  Assembly 
meant  version.  No  example,  however,  has  been  adduced 
of  such  a  use,  or  rather  abuse,  of  language.  Ralph  Ers- 
kine,  who  flourished  a  century  and  a  quarter  nearer  the 
period  of  that  Assembly  (1649)  than  we  are,  may  be  re- 
garded as  good  authority  on  the  question.  He  calls  his 
versification  of  the  Song  of  Solomon  "  a  paraphrase,  or 
large  explicatory  poem."  Of  the  nature  of  his  "ver- 
sion" one  fact  is  sufficient  proof :  the  title  contained  in 
the  first  line,  is  paraphrased  into  sixteen  lines.  And  so 
of  all  the  rest.  This  was  what  Ralph  Erskine  meant  by 
u  paraphrase,  or  large  explicatory  poem" 

This  should  satisfy  every  candid  mind — but  even  the 
common  standards  of  the  English  language  teach  that 
il  a  paraphrase"  is  a  "  loose  interpretation,  an  explana- 
tion in  many  words,"*  and  of  course  it  cannot  be  the  same 
as  if  a  version  or  translation."  The  General  Assembly  of 
1649  well  knew  what  they  were  saying  when  they  author- 
ized tl  Rouse's  paraphrase  of  the  Psalms  with  the  cor- 
rections now  given."  Most  assuredly  they  could  not 
have  meant  "  a  literal  and  faithful  translation  of  the  ori- 
ginal!" 

A  rapid  glance  at  the  early  history  of  Psalmody  in  the 
church  of  Scotland,  will  shed  some  further  light  upon 
•  Johnson  followed  by  Walker. 


WHAT    BONGS    ARE    INSPIRED.  57 

the  subject.  Prior  to  1546  there  is  no  ant] 
of  metr  d  Psalms.  l>ut  the  Psalms  were  used  in  tome 
i  in  Divine  worship.311  It  was  in  this  year  (1546) 
that  Scotland's  second  martyr,  the  ootemporary,  precep- 
tor and  friend  of  John  Knox,  an  1  to  whom  Knoi  u 
of  all  men  most  indebted/1  Bealed  Ins  devotion  to  his 
Divine  Lord  and  Master  with  his  blood.  On  the  night 
when  Wishart  was  apprehended,  he  gave  a  most  consoling 
discourse  on  the  death  of  God's  children,  and  though  he 
knew  that  on  the  morrow  he  should  go  to  the  stake,  he 
I,  u  Methinks  I  desire  to  sleep."  He  then  appointed 
the  51st  Psalm  to  be  sung,  which  had  been  turned  into 
rhyme,  kef  But  was  this  61st  Psalm  "a  literal  and 
faithful  version  ?  M  It  has  been  shown  in  a  previous 
Letter  that  the  fifty-three  lines  in  our  Bibles  were  expand- 
ed into  one  hundred  and  forty  of  "  the  effusion  !  "  We 
have  room  for  only  one  additional  stanza. 

PROSE    mtSIOH.  WISHART'S    HYMN'. 

Though  dclightest  not  in  burnt     Burnt  sacrifice  is  no  delito 
offering.  Unto  thy  Majestie — 

TIiou  carest  not  of  it  one  mite 

Pot  sinus  to  satisfy. 

For  only  Christ  did  make  us  quit 

Of  all  enormitie. 

To  thy  mercie  will  I  go. 

This  was  the  form  in  which  the  martyrs  and  early  re- 
formers of  Scotland  sung  the  Psalms.  Those  holy  men 
do  not  seem  to  have  Bnspected  any  crinu  in  Buch  a 
pel  use  of  the  inspired  records.  The  whole  Bong  is  ia 
the  same  Btyle,  paraphrase  and  "gospel  turns"  after  the 
manner  of  Dr.  Watts  I  According  to  our  brethren,  this 
was  nol  '•  practicing  Psalmody"  at  all,  but  singing  "the 
mere  effusions  of  men." J 

This  appears  to  have  been  among  the  earliest  "metred 
*  m  i .  7i. 

t  Ji  Worthies,  p. 

•'  in& 
neither  ma  !••  hyn  g  then." — T        '  ly,  p.  124. 

-■.art  was  as  much  **a  fti/ntn  of  human  composition"  si 


58  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

Psalms"  in  Scotland  j  but  in  the  southern  parts  of  the 
island,  as  far  back  as  1538,  Miles  Coverdale  (an  honored 
name  in  the  annals  of  the  Reformation,)  had  made  the 
earliest  known  attempt  at  rendering  Psalms  into  English 
verse  for  the  purposes  of  sacred  song.  During  the  reign 
of  Edward  VI.  he  published  "Ghostly  Psalms  and  Spir- 
itual Songes,  drawen  out  of  the  Holy  Scripture."  In  his 
preface  Coverdale  states  that  he  had  "  set  out  certain 
comfortable  songs  grounded  in  God's  word,  and  taken 
some  out  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  specially  out  of  the 
Psalms  of  David,  in  order  that  the  youth  of  England," 
&c.  His  book  contained  only  thirteen  Psalms,  viz.  the 
2d,  11th,  13th,  24th,  45th,  50th,  67th,  123d,  129th, 
133d,  136th,  147th,  and  127th.  The  remainder  con- 
sisted of  versifications  "  grounded  on  other  parts  of  God's 
word."  So  early  did  "  corruption  of  Divine  worship" 
begin  in  that  church  !* 

The  versification  by  Sternhold  and  Hopkins  made  its 
appearance  1549-1563,  at  which  latter  period  was  pub- 
lished "  The  whole  Boke  of  Psalmes  collected  into  Eng- 
lish metre,  conferred  wiih  the  Eorue."  This  was  the 
system  of  Psalmody  used  by  the  church  of  Scotland  for 
one  hundred  years  before  the  adoption  of  that  by  Rouse. 
Was  it  framed  on  the  principle  of  "  a  true  and  literal 
translation  ?"  Very  far  from  it.  Professor  Beveridger 
as  already  quoted,  admits  that  it  was  not.  For  example, 
take  the  last  lines  of  the  second  Psalm  : 

PROSE    VERSION.  STERXHOLD* 

"When  his  wrath  is  kindled  but     If  once  his  wnith  never  so  small 
a  little.     Blessed  are  all  they  that     Shall  kindle  in  his  breast, 
put  their  trust  in  him.  0  then  all  they  trust  in  Christ 

Shall  happy  be  and  blest. 

Here  again  we  find  the  "gospel  turn"  so  frequently 
used  by  Dr.  Watts  !  But  besides  the  constant  recur- 
rence of  broad  paraphrase,  to  the  75th  and  125th  Psalms 
are  appended  "  doxologies."  The  former  reads  as  fol- 
lows : 

*  Our  authority  for  these  facts  is  Thomas  II.  Home. 


WHAT   SONGS   ARE    INSPIRED.  59 

!Po  Father,  Boo,  u  I  B 
>r\  be  therefore : 

-  now, 
And  shall  be  evermore. 

other  is  largi  r,  and  la  without  the  smallest  mark 
Listinguish  it  from  the  body  of  the  Psalm  : 

y  to  Sod  the  Father  of  might, 
An  I  line  our  Saviour, 

And  to  the  11-  Ij  Ghost)  whose  light 
Bhine  In  our  hearts  end  as  sa 

Thar  tlw  ri:;ht  way  from  daj  I 
We  may  walks  and  him  glorifie  : 
With  I  all  that  are  here, 

Worship  the  Lord,  and  say,  Amen. 

These  are  purely  "  human  composures"  added  to  the 

inspired  text,   "  uecessarily  defective  effusions,  claiming 

no  higher  origin  than  the  ingenuity  of  man."*     If  these 

brethren,  some  of  them  at   least,  had  lived  in  the  days 

when  this  Psalmody  was  used,  and  had  held  the  same 

views  they  now  profess,  they  must  have  seceded  from  the 

S     ttish  church.      They  could  not  have  tolerated  such 

nations  from  the  appointed  order" — such  contempt 

•  i  punctilious  regard  to  every  part  of  Divine  institu- 

V — such   "intrusion  of  an  unhallowed  hand  upon 

the  ark  of  God" — such   ''impious  license" — such   "  en- 

ihmcnt    upon    the    instituted    ordinances  of   God." 

y  must  have  issued  their  "  Testimony"  against  these 

dariny  crimes,  lest  they  should  partake  of  the  sin  of 

•  I  dab   and  Abihu,"   and  fled  from  a  church  which  by 

thus  "adding   to   the  words  of  God,"   must  have  been 

"rq  \d  found  a   liar."     So  true  is  it,  that  in 

man]  nhold    and  Hopkins'   system    bears    a 

ublance  to  the  Presbyterian  Psalmody  than 

to  "a  true  and  literal  version/1     In  a  future  Letter ♦ 

•  further  illustrations  of  these  curious  facts  will  be 

in  connection  with  another  topic. 

Thus,  th<  n,  from  the  days  of  Knox  and  AVi>hart  down 

to  the  period  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  the  noble, 

*  Apology,  p,  202. 

r  IX. 


60  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

apostolic  church  of  Scotland  decidedly  condemned  in  her 
practice  the  principle  of  "  a  correct  and  faithful  version 
of  the  whole  book  of  Psalms. "  This  of  itself  is  pre- 
sumption strong  against  that  principle,  especially  when 
associated  with  the  arrogant  claim  of  "Divine  appoint- 
ment, "  which  of  course  places  the  ban  upon  all  else  as 
"human  invention/'  "will  worship/'  &c. 

If  the  reasonings  of  these  brethren  be  correct,  that 
venerable  church,  for  the  first  century  and  a  quarter  of  her 
exiscence,  had  only  a  "  human  Psalmody  V  Her  martyrs, 
confessors,  and  apostolic  men,  sung  in  the  praise  of  God 
only  or  chiefly  "  their  own  effusions/'  "  the  imperfect, 
however  well  intended,  effusions  of  fallible  men/'  &c! 

If  it  should  be  inquired  —  Why  did  that  venerable 
church  lay  aside  Sternhold  and  Hopkins,  and  adopt  that 
commonly  called  Rouse's  version  ?  we  answer  in  the 
words  of  Dr.  Beveridge  :  "  In  process  of  time  the  change 
in  the  English  language  became  so  great,  and  the  dissat- 
isfaction with  this  antiquated  version  so  general,  that  the 
necessity  of  an  improved  version  became  evident."  But 
neither  Dr.  Beveridge  nor  any  other  writer  that  we 
have  ever  met  with,  pretends  that  the  change  was  made 
on  the  ground  that  the  martyr  church  of  Scotland  had  for 
a  century  been  guilty  of  a  daring  and  high  handed  inva- 
sion of  the  Divine  prerogative  —  had  committed  a  sin 
resembling  the  fearful  crime  of  Uzza — had  offered  in  her 
songs  of  praise  the  strange  fire  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  !  ! 
There  were  reasons  sufficient,  as  Dr.  Beveridge  well  ob- 
serves, occasioned  by  the  lapse  of  time  and  the  revolu- 
tion in  language,  to  warrant  a  change,  without  resorting 
to  the  startling  supposition,  viz.  that  the  martyr  church 
of  Scotland  then  for  the  first  time  awoke  to  the  fearful 
fact,  that  for  a  hundred  years  and  more  she  had  habitually 
profaned  and  trampled  under  foot  one  of  the  most  pre- 
cious ordinances  of  God's  house  ! 

The  principle  of  "a  correct  and  faithful  version  or  trans- 
lation/' is  thus  demonstrated  to  be  a  modern  invention  I 
It  is  repudiated  by  the  earliest  specimens  of  Psalmody  sung 


WEifl    SONGS    AKE    INSPIRED.  Gl 

by  distinguished  reformers,  martynand  holy  men  of  ( I 
It  is  repudiated  by  the  earliest  complete  versification  oi 

the  Psalms  authorized   by  thai  church.      It  is  repudiated 
by  the  very  system  used  by  these  brethren  themselves 

and  by  the  church  of  Scotland — viz.  Route,     The  men 
who  framed  and   introduced  it,  were  familiar  with  many 

precedents  in  the  Scottish,  French  and  other  refor- 
mation churches,  which  gave  no  countenance  to  such  a 
principle,  hut  the  very  reverse.  They  evidently  had  no 
thought  of  nuking  "a  literal  translation/'  Sfl  is  demon- 
strated by  the  title  "paraphrase/'  employed  in  their  sol- 
emn ecclesiastical  acts  ;  and  especially,  by  examining  the 
"  version  7  itself,  nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  it  is 
very  far  removed  from  "a  true  and  literal  translation/' 
Those  who  speak  of  it  under  this  presuming  title,  and 
call  it  "an  inspired  Psalmody,"  are  themselves  guilty 
both  of  "adding  to  and  taking  away  from  the  word  of 
God."  To  represent  this  patchwork  system  as  "  an  in- 
spired  Psalmody,"  is  to  degrade  the  productions  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  a  level  with  the  effusions  of  men  !"  To 
represent  Bouse'fl  paraphrase  as  "the  Psalms  and  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs  which  God  hatgioi  n  u*  in  hu  wordy"* 
is  a  gross  abuse  of  language,  to  say  the  very  least 

Let  us  now  turn  to  some  of  the  objections  or  evasions, 

by  which  these  conclusions  are  attempted  to  be  set  aside : 

1.  To  account  for  the  very  paraphrastic  character  of 

l -nhold  and  Hopkins'  psalmody,  it  has  been  attributed 

t  i  "the  difficulty  experienced  in  that  age  in  making  a 

strict  translation."     But  the  work  itself  refutes  this  eva- 

:.     It  gives  no  explanation  at  all  of  the  "doxologies" 

re  quoted,  which  are  pure  "human  composition." 
does  it  account  for  the  numerous  I  turns," 

[)hra>tie  and  explanatory  clan-.-,  ftc,  A  •.  No  one 
acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  church  of  Scotland, 
her  mighty  men  of  stature,  her  noble  army  of  martyrs, 
would  pay  them  such  an  equivocal  compliment.  It  will 
not  do  to  charge  upon  that  glorious  old  Presbyterian 

*  Preacher,  February  23,  1 
6 


62  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

church  "intrusion  of  a  profane  hand  upon  the  ark  of 
God/'  contempt  of  "  Divine  institutions/'  &c,  and  then 
apologize  for  her  crimes,  by  alleging  that  she  had  no 
minds  capable  of  making  as  "correct  and  faithful"  a 
versification  as  that  of  Rouse  ! 

These  brethren  know  too  well  what  sort  of  men  consti- 
tuted the  early  church  of  Scotland,  and  comprehend  too 
accurately  the  absurdity  of  such  a  solution  of  the  diffi- 
culties suggested  by  the  examples  adduced.  Besides, 
rather  than  thus  "  impiously  corrupt  the  ordinance  of 
God/'  why  not  chant  the  prose  of  their  Bibles  ?  "  In 
the  Scottish  church/'  says  one  of  these  authors,  "  the  re- 
formers are  reported  to  have  sung  the  book  of  Psalms  in 
prose  —  the  form,  perhaps,  in  which  it  should  still  be 
used."*  If  this  be  so,  then  surely  that  noble  old  church 
was  under  no  necessity  of  corrupting  the  Psalms  which 
God  has  given  !  She  was  not  chargeable  with  the  un- 
natural crime  of  giving  her  children  a  stone,  instead  of 
bread — instead  of  a  fish,  a  scorpion  !  But  besides  all  this, 
in  many  parts  Bouse  is  very  little  better  than  Sternhold. 
Thus  the  difficulty  remains  in  all  its  force. 

2.  Admitting  the  imperfections  of  "  Rouse's  version," 
it  is  sometimes  said  :  "  We  are  not  particular  about  a 
version ,  but  only  contend  for  the  principle  of  an  inspired 
Psalmody."  In  other  words,  your  theory  is  very  sound, 
but  in  practice  you  trample  it  under  foot !  The  story  is 
told  of  one  who  professed  to  be  a  very  rigid  Calvinist, 
but  was  often  found  intoxicated  and  profane  !  When  he 
was  reproved  by  his  pastor,  he  replied:  "  My  dear  sir, 
my  principles  are  perfectly  sound,  though  I  admit  I  pay 
no  regard  to  them  in  my  life  !"  Our  brethren  are  very 
earnest  in  defending  "  a  true  and  literal  version  as  of  Di- 
vine appointment."  But  as  to  their  practice,  that  is  left 
to  take  care  of  itself;  and  "  Divine  appointment"  is 
permitted  to  "  go  and  do  likewise  !"  We  have  shown  by 
numerous  extracts  from  their  own  writings,  that  whilst 
constantly  employing  a  patchwork  paraphrase,  they  pro- 
*  M'Master's  Apology. 


WHAT    BONOS    AUK    INSPIRED.  63 

ing  "inspired  BODga  only,"  uthe  worn  of  G 
Thus  fchej  speak  of  their  Psalmody  I 
:;.   Ir  is  farther  objected,  thai  on  the  original  title  page, 
•-  R  mat's  paraphrase  "  is  represented  as  u more  agreeable 

so  the  original  text  than  any  heretofore  "f  But  this  is  not 
denied.  Suppose  it  to  be  ''more  agreeable"  to  the  ori- 
ginal than  "Sternhold  and  Hopkins'' — does  that  pi 

it  to  be  u  a  literal  and  faithful  version  Vs     Is  it  therefore 

u  the  word  of  God  in  the  same  sense  with  the  prose  of 
our  Bibles  .'" 

4.  It  is  further  objected,  that  the  same  original  title- 
page  represents  "  House's  paraphrase"  as  "translai 
and  diligently  compared  with  the  original  text/'  Sec.  f 
But  what  does  this  prove  ?  In  order  to  make  a  correct 
paraphrase  it  is  of  course  indispensable  to  consult  the 
original  text.  And  as  to  the  use  of  the  term  "  translated/' 
it  proves  nothing,  especially  nothing  against  the  evidence 
of  facts  adduced  in  former  letters.  Dr.  Watts  applies 
the  very    same    term    to   his    "paraphrase."     And  the 

_:nal  title  of  Sternhold  and  Hopkins'  contains  the 
clause,  "conferred  with  the  Ebrue."  But  who  is  now 
so   foolish    as    to  call   that  system    u  a  true  and   literal 

non,"  or  indeed  a  version  at  all  1  The  chosen  title 
nsed  by  the  Scottish  General  Assembly  is  "  paraphrase." 
Still  we  do  not  deny  that  in  a  part  of  the  Psalms,  Rous 
is  a  version  which  may  be  properly  termed  "  correct  an  1 
faithful;"  but  if  focti  do  not  deceive,  there  can  be  as 
little  doubt  that  as  a  system  it  is  not  "a  literal  and 
faithful  version,"  but  in  numerous  instances,  as  we  have 
proved,  is  a  paraphrase  or  explanation.  The  Psalm  lv 
of  the  Presbyterian  church,  as  arranged  by  her  commit- 
miiHtf  of  the  Pbcdmty  as  correct  a  tunic 
the  whole  is  denounced  as  "the  effusions 
of  fallibk  men,"  while  "the  human  additions"  and  "im- 
provements" of  Rouse  are  called  "  tht  word  of  Qodl  " 

*  u  If  the  book  of  Psalm?   in   the  prose  translation,  daMlfM  to  be 

v    the  iii'-tri'-ai    ■ 

.  un  Psftlmodjj  \>.  117. 
|  P*  :uU-r  Uth,  ISU. 


64  LETTERS    OX    PSALMODY. 

5.  It  is  objected  that  the  Scottish  commissioners,  Ruth- 
erford and  Gillespie,  in  writing  to  their  General  Assem- 
bly say — "  It  [Rouse]  will  be  found  as  near  the  original 
as  any  paraphrase  in  metre  can  readily  be."  *  We  think 
so  too.  It  would  really  be  a  difficult  task  to  construct  a 
paraphrase  in  metre,  (observe,  a  paraphrase,  not  a  trans- 
lation,) much,  if  at  all  more  near  the  original  than  this  of 
Rouse.  But  does  that  prove  the  paraphrase  to  be  "  a 
literal  and  faithful  version/'  or  translation  of  the  original  ? 

6.  It  may  be  alleged,  that  vigorous  efforts  are  now 
being  made  to  improve  the  "  paraphrase  of  Rouse,"  so 
as  to  make  it  "a  literal  version."  We  have  before  us 
two  of  these  "  improved  versions,"  but  compared  with 
Rouse,  they  make  but  small  pretensions  to  be  an  "  inspired 
Psalmody."  We  give  one  or  two  illustrations.  Thus  in 
Psalm  147  :  10  — "  He  delighteth  not  in  the  strength  of 
the  horse ;  he  taketh  not  pleasure  in  the  legs  of  a  man." 

ROUSE.  IMPROVED    VERSION. 

His    pleasure    not    in   horse's     Not  in  the  fleetness,  or  the  might 
strength,  Of  horse  or  man,  can  God  delight. 

Nor  in  man's  legs  doth  lie. 

So  also  in  Psalm  136  :  15 — "But  overthrew  Pharaoh 
and  his  host  in  the  Red  Sea." 

ROUSE.  IMPROVED    VERSION. 

But  overwhelmed  and  lost  But  overwhelmed  and  lost 

Was  proud  King  Pharaoh,  "Was  Pharaoh,  that  proud  king, 

With  all  his  mighty  host  With  all  his  mighty  host 

And  chariots  also.  Which  he  did  with  him  bring. 

Both  these  versions  "lay  aside  as  useless"  the  inspired 
clause  "in  the  Red  Sea!"  Do  these  brethren  imagine 
"they  write  better  than  David!"  Again,  Psalm  122  : 
1 — "  I  was  glad  when  they  said  unto  me,  Let  us  go  into 
the  house  of  the  Lord." 

ROUSE.  IMPROVED    VERSION. 

I  joy'd  when  to  the  house  of    I  was  glad  to  hear  them  say, 

God,  On  the  holy  Sabbath  day, 

Go  up,  they  said  to  me.  Let  us  now  attend  the  courts 

Jerusalem,  within  thy  gates  Where  the  Holy  One  resorts. 

Our  feet  shall  standing  be.  We  within  thy  gates  will  stand, 

Salem,  pride  of  all  the  land. 

•  Preacher,  December  13,  18-44. 


WHAT    BOKGfl    ABE    INSPIRED.  56 

Where  these  brethren  learned  that  the  Psalmist's  glad- 
nets  was  u  on  the  holy  Sabbath  day,"  more  than  any  other 
day,  they  do  not  inform  as.     Certainly  the  Psalm  does 

DO!    Bay    BO.      Tli' •  v    Beem    to   have    thought    they  could 

uimprovi  npon  i>avid!"      Vet  they  tell  us,  in  their  ZVe- 

.   "The  principle  which    the  Associate  Refors 

church  Imhls,  is,  k  a  faithful  translation  OTvenion  of  the 

book  of  Psalm-  !'  "  And  the  foregoing  are  a  few  out  of 
many  scores  of  examples  of  this  u faithful  translation  .' " 
These  are  not  wry  promising  attempts  to  obtain  a  more 
11  mm  and  literal  version  "  than  Rouse.  Indeed,  if  J?< 
was  "framed  upou  the  principle  of  a  translation  of  the 
original  as  close  as  the  laws  of  versification  will  allow/9* 
IS  l>r.  Presslj  assures  us,  it  is  of  course  vain  to  expect 
any  more  closely  literal  system,  unless  the  original  au- 
thors were  totally  unqualified  for  their  work,  which  Pr. 
P.  will  not  venture  to  affirm. 

And  now,  what  are  the  fair  and  legitimate  conclusions 
from  this  inyestigati 

1.  We  have  shown,  by  undeniable  facts,  that  these 
brethren  have  taken  away  from  "  the  songs  of  inspira- 
tion, in  which  God  teaches  his  church  how  to  praise  "^ 
an  amount  of  matter  e<jual  to  forty-live  songs  of  the  size 
of  Psalm  117,  and  that  they  have  added  to  these  songs 
"human  composition"  to  the  same  amount.  Of  course 
their  pretensions  to  "a  correct  and  faithful  version"  of 
the  whole  book,  are  a  nullity. 

2.  We  have  proved  that  the  earliest  specimens  of 
Psalmody  in  metre,  as  used  by  our  Scottish  forefathers, 
sung  by  their  martyrs  ami  reformers,  were  not  formed 
upon  tie-  Uterai  principle,  hut  were  much  more  nearly 
after  tin-  style  and  manner  of  the  Presbyterian  system, 
only  much  more  paraphrastic. 

B.    We  have  proved  that   from  the  period  of  the 

lishm<  nr  of  the  Reformation  down  to  the  Westminster 

Assembly,  that  noble  Apostolic  church  employed  in  pub- 

*  Addrew,  Deeen 

f  V-  tadmody,  p.  118, 

G* 


66  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

lie  and  private  worship  a  versification  of  the  Psalms 
(Sternhold  and  Hopkins')  which  utterly  condemns  and 
repudiates  the  principle  of  "  a  literal  and  faithful  version 
of  the  whole  book/'  being  in  man)7  particulars  more  like 
the  Presbyterian  Psalmody  than  u  a  literal  version/' 

4.  We  have  demonstrated  by  the  record  itself,  that 
the  Psalmody  employed  in  the  Presbyterian  churches  of 
Scotland  (Rouse's  paraphrase)  ever  since  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  is  widely  different  from  a  "  literal  and 
faithful  version  or  translation  of  the  whole  book  of 
Psalms  •"  so  that  the  authority  and  example  of  those 
venerable  churches  is  with  the  Presbyterians,  rather 
than  with  these  brethren.  And  in  view  of  such  facts, 
their  denunciations  of  terrible  judgments  on  the  sin  of 
singing  u  human  composures,"  &c,  while  they  habitu- 
ally do  the  same  wicked  thing,  will  be  more  likely  to 
produce  a  smile  than  conviction — at  least  with  all  intel- 
ligent Presbyterians. 

5.  It  has  been  demonstrated  that  the  system  of  Psal- 
mody called  u  Rouse's  version,"  is  "the  word  of  God" 
in  a  sense  similar  to  that  in  which  a  piece  of  cloth  inter- 
woven with  more  than  five  hundred  patches  of  cotton  is 
the  pure  silk  fabric!  Of  course,  the  lofty  claims  which 
are  made  in  its  favor  appear  rather  small.  And  if,  as 
we  are  assured,  the  whole  book  of  Psalms  is  of  "  Divine 
appointment"  then  these  brethren  use  "a  human  Psal- 
mody !"  Yet  they  tell  us,  "  our  plea  is  for  a  true  ver- 
sion of  the  book  of  Psalms  as  of  Divine  authority."* 
"  We  sing  inspired  songs  only ." 

And  what  shall  we  say  of  the  rash  assertion,  that, 
u  like  the  prose  translation  of  the  whole  Bible,"  Rouse 
u  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  word  of  God?"  If  in  the 
Psalms,  or  in  any  other  book  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
the  same  amount  of  such  interpolation  and  comments 
were  found,  the  whole  Protestant  world  would  condemn 
the  translation  and  call  imperatively  for  a  new  one.  It 
would  not  be  tolerated  at  all  as  "  the  Bible  without  note 

*  Apology,  p.  vi. 


WHAT   BONOfl   ABB   INSPIRED.  67 

or  comment."      And  yet  we  are  assured,  u  The  question 

amply  this — shall  we  use  the  Psalms  and  hymna  and 

spiritual  wtmgt  which    Gfod  has  given  in  his  word?    Or 

shall  ire  use  Bnch  as  have  been  prepared  by  uninspired 
men  . 

in.     rrThe  substitution  or  use  *  *  *  *  of  imita- 

\  and  paraphr  •  orruption  of  the  worship  of 

<i"l  :"'-;-     Set   these  brethren  constantly  use  "Boot 
Paraphrase,  or  Explanation  of  the  Psalms!"     As  to  the 
•      lections  of  Hymns  employed  by  marly  all  the  Scot- 

chuiohes,  Presbyterians  may  well  rejoioe  to  be  de- 
nounced in  company  with   Bnch   men  as  l)rs.  Chalmers, 

llishj  Duff,  and  a  host  of  others,  in  like  manner 
"corrupters  of  the  worship  of  God  V  But  we  shall 
speak  more  fully  on  this  point  in  another  Litter. 

*  Preacher.  February  23,  1844. 

CJnioD  submitted  by  tho  Associate  or  SeceJer  church  to 
..urch. 


68  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 


LETTER  VI. 

SOURCES    WHENCE    SONGS    OF    PRAISE  ARE    TO    BE    DERIVED PRESBY- 
TERIANS    RECEIVE    ALL     SCRIPTURE    AS     OF     CSE    TO    DIRECT    US    IN 

PRAISE    AS  WELL  AS  IN  PRAYER OPPOSITE  DOCTRINE,  THE  PSALMS 

EXCLUSIVELY  —  ALL    BESIDES     CORRUPTION    OF    DIVINE    WORSHIP 

SCOTTISH    CHURCHES.    GENERALLY    USE    OTHER    SONGS     BESIDES    THE 

PSALMS EXAMPLES,  FREE  AND  ESTABLISHED  CHURCHES —  UNITED 

PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH,   AC. OUR  BRETHREN  REJECT  ALL  INSPIRED 

MATTER     FOR    SONG,    EXCEPT    ONE     HUNDRED    AND    FIFTY    PSALMS 

THEIR  THEORY  NOT  SUSTAINED  BY  THE  EXAMPLES  OF  OLD  AND 
NEW  TESTAMENT  PROPHETS  AND  INSPIRED  MEN,  ISAIAH,  BEZE- 
KIAH,    AC. 

My  Dear  Sir  : — We  come  next  to  examine  the  sources 
whence,  according  to  these  brethren,  the  church  should 
derive  all  her  songs  of  praise. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  church  is  this  :  As 
we  are  taught  in  the  Westminster  Catechism  that  "  the 
whole  word  of  God  is  of  use  to  direct  us  in  prayer/'  so 
we  maintain  it  to  be  of  "use  to  direct  us"  in  praise. 
And  this  view  seems  the  more  probable,  because  in  every 
other  department  of  public  and  private  worship,  none  but 
the  Jews  restrict  themselves  to  the  Old  Testament.  In- 
deed the  person  who  should  seriously  advise  these  breth- 
ren to  limit  all  other  Divine  worship  to  the  forms  and 
phraseology  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  would  only  expose 
himself  to  their  contempt ! 

On  the  other  hand,  the  doctrine  taught  by  these 
brethren  is  as  follows:  "It  is  the  will  of  God  that  the 
sacred  songs  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms  be  sung 
in  his  praise  to  the  end  of  the  world;  and  we  have  no 
authority  to  use  any  other."  Or  as  otherwise  expressed : 
"It  would  appear  to  be  the  Divine  will  that  this  (book 
of  Psalms)  should  be  used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others."* 
What  these  brethren  include  in  the  terms  "sacred  songs 
of   the   book    of  Psalms,"  we    learn  by  their  common 

*  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  87. 


Till  r.   B0UBCB6   OF  EK8PI&ED   BOHCh  G9 

'/..  sudi  paraphrastic  and  explanatory  versifica- 
tit  ns  as  those  of  Rouse.  In  their  books  intended  for 
general  circulation  —  in  their  arguments  with  other  de- 
nominations,  and  in  their  formal  "Testimony"  against  the 
their  brethren,  "if  is  for  the  use  of  the  Psalms 
in  %  faithful  translation  they  testify/'*  But  when  we 
examine  their  Psalmody,  we  are  at  no  loss  to  decide  how 
far  "a  OOITect  and  faithful  translation"  governs  their 
rice.  It  has  been  abundantly  showy  in  previous  Let* 
uts,  that  they  sing  "a  paraphrase,"  a  large  mixture  of 
"human  composition"  with  the  Divine  thought  and 
phraseology)    often  inverting  the  order  rind  arran<jtin<  ut 

of  "God's  Psalm  book!" 

But  the  question  of  the  exclusive  use  of  the  book  of 
Psalms  is  with  these  brethren  no  mere  theory  in  other  as- 
pects— but  one  of  very  great  practical  importance.  "Main- 
taining as  we  do/'  they  Bay,  "the  exclusive  use  of  that 
compilation  of  sacred  snugs  which  God  has  prepared  and 
given  to  his  church,  we  are  under  the  necessity  of  holding 
those  who  depart  from  this  appointment,  as  neriouefy cor- 
rupting one  of  the  most  interesting  and  important  ordi- 
nances of  God/'f  And  to  enforce  this  charge  of  corrvp- 
tion}  the  same  writer  affirms,  that  "compared  witli  the 
prose  version  of  our  Bibles."  Rouse's  versification  "is 
formed  on  the  principle  of  a  literal  translation!"  Of 
course  he  holds  that  he  and  his  brethren  sing  "%  faithful 
and  literal  translation/1  which  equally  with  the  prose,  is 
,rd  of  God  ft 

But  where  do  they  find  Divine  authority  for  restrict- 
ing the  praises  of  the  church  under  the  New  Testament 
to  the  "nook  of  PsalmsT1  In  solving  this  question  we 
a.-k  attention  to  several  particulars: 

1.  The  question  a-  stated  in  the  extracts  given  above, 
i<  not  tin-  question  of  "the  exclusive  use  of  an  inspired 
Pfealmody.       Even  if  Rouse  were  all  that  some  pn  I 

'.Mx.ny  of  tbe  Quite  1  Prael  yterian  church,  p.  46. 
f  Preacher,  bj  I»r.  Kn-r.  Jnn 

lad  t»  ptore  that  Rouse's  version  is  tho  word 
of  God."— J' 


70  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

to  believe  it,  viz.  "the  very  word  of  God"  (a  mon- 
strous assertion,)  still  the  inquiry  returns — "are  there 
no  inspired  Psalms,  hymns  and  songs  in  other  parts  of 
the  Bible  ?"  Certainly  there  are.  Well,  then,  suppose 
that  these  other  songs  not  found  in  the  book  of  Psalms, 
were  paraphrased  in  metre  as  closely  to  the  original  as 
Rouse,  would  they  from  that  moment  cease  to  be  in- 
spired songs  ?  Do  they  then  become  "  corruptions  of 
worship  "  to  all  t^at  use  them  in  praise  ?  So  teaches  the 
theory  of  our  brethren.  Thus  instead  of  testifying,  as 
they  profess,  "for  the  use  of  an  inspired  Psalmody,"* 
they  are  found  testifying  against  a  large  number  of  sa- 
cred songs,  the  productions  of  the  Holy  Spirit ! 

Thus  their  theory  condemns  the  use  of  all  "  inspired 
compositions/'  which  are  not  among  the  one  hundred  and 
fifty  Psalms.  As  for  example  the  sixty-seven  "transla- 
tions and  paraphrases/'  employed  by  the  Free  and  Estab- 
lished churches  of  Scotland.  These  extend  from  Genesis 
to  Revelation;  and  many,  perhaps  all  of  them,  are  as 
close  to  the  Scripture  text  as  many  parts  of  Rouse's  par- 
aphrases. Yet  while  Rouse  is  vehemently  defended  as 
"inspired  Psalmody/'  these  other  "  songs  composed  in 
heaven"  are  mere  "corruptions  of  worship!" 

The  same  line  of  argument  applies  to  the  "  hymn 
book  of  the  United  Presbyterian  church  of  Scotland." 
It  contains  four  hundred  and  ninety  paraphrases  of  por- 
tions of  Scripture  referred  to  in  the  titles  of  the  several 
hymns,  most  of  which  Scriptures  are  found  outside  of  the 
Psalms.  Many  of  these  are  as  close  paraphrases  of  Holy 
Writ  as  large  portions  of  Rouse.  Yet  all  are  "  corrup- 
tions." It  is  a  mistake,  therefore,  in  these  brethren  to 
say  :  "  The  principle  of  which  we  are  the  advocate,  is 
the  songs  of  inspiration. "f  Neither  is  it  "  the  great 
question"  as  they  affirm,  "  whether  we  have  authority  to 
use  any  other  than  the  songs  of  inspiration."  It  is 
demonstrated  by  your  own  statements  as  given  above, 

*  Testimony  of  United  Presbyterian  church,  p.  46. 
f  Preacher,  by  Dr.  Pressly,  February  23,  1844. 


IBUB   BQUBQBfl   OF  INSPIRED   SONG.  71 

that  you  testify  against  all  tlio  inspired  songs  of  the  Bi- 
ble, except  one  bandied  and  fifty  Psalms.  "These 
Divine  songs,"  this  "collection  of  Psalms,"  &c.,  we 
arc  told,  u  constitute  an  inspired  system  of  Ihalwiody"* 
On  this  exclusive  theory,  all  inspired  songs  not  contained 
in  that  "collection,"  are  "corruptions"  of  Divine  wor- 
ship, if  used  for  purposes  of  praise  !  Against  all  such 
testify.  Thus  a  large  number  of  "the  songs  of  in- 
spiration "  are  "laid  aside  as  useless. ", 

-.   Our  second   remark   is  this  :  That  these  exclusive 
principles  are  quite  unseemly  and  unnatural  among  those 
who  strenuously  maintain  the  Divine  origin  of  the  whole 
Bible.     It  is  well  known  to  every  student  of  the  Scrip- 
that   large  portions  of  the  prophecies,  Job,  Pro- 
verbs,  Solomon's  Song,  and  the  Lamentations,  (to  say 
nothing  of  the  songs  of  the  Xew  Testament,)  are  written 
in  the  strains  of  the  most  sublime  and  beautiful  poetry. 
Yet  all  this  devotional  and  inspired  matter,  though  often 
rv  Psalms  and  songs  in  which  inspired  men  praised 
God,  and  called  upon  the  church  to  praise  him,  is  utterly 
led  by  the  exclusive  doctrine.    For  example,  Isaiah, 
chapter  5  :    "Now  will  I  sing  to  my  well  beloved  a  song 
of  my  beloved,"  kc.     The   beloved  was  of   course   the 
only  true  God,  and  this   song  was  an  act  of  praise  to 
him.      Again,  chapter  12  :   "In  that  day  thou  shalt  say, 
0  Lord  1  will  praise  thee  ;  *     *     *  the  Lord  Jehovah  is 
trength  and  my  song,  and  he  is  become  my  salva- 
tion," cV.c.    "  The  structure  of  this  Psalm,"  says  Dr.  J.  A. 
cander,  "is  very  regular/' — Commentary ^  p.  237. 
The   character  of  Isaiah  as  the  penman  of  the   Holy 
ada   among   the   very    highest   of    the   writers 
of  the  Scriptures.      His  very  name  means   "the  salvati-  D 
'vah/'aiid  his  illustrious  predictions  of  the  birth, 
character,   mission,  miracle-,   sufferings,   death,    burial 
and   final   glory   of    the    Messiah,  have   won  him  the 
iction,  "the  Evangelical   Prophet."     \\\<  descrip- 
:.-,  increase   and  perfection   uf 
*  PkmIj  on  Psalmody,  p.  142. 


72  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

Christ's  kingdom  on  earth,  by  the  effusions  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  have  made  his  prophecies  rather  a  fifth  gospel 
than  a  series  of  predictions,  a  history  rather  than  a  vis- 
ion of  the  future.  The  transcendent  excellencies  of 
his  compositions,  at  once  forcible,  elevated,  majestic,  sub- 
lime and  highly  ornamented,  have  entitled  them  justly 
to  the  praise  of  being  "  the  most  elegant  part  of  the 
Old  Testament  writings  f*  and  won  to  himself  the  distinc- 
tion of  being  "  the  Prince  of  the  Old  Testament  Pro- 
phets." Of  this  12th  chapter,  Home  *  says  :  "  This 
hymn  seems  by  its  whole  tenor,  as  well  as  by  many  of 
its  expressions,  much  better  calculated  for  the  use  of  the 
Christian  than  for  the  Jewish  church,  *  *  and  the  Jews 
themselves  seem  to  have  applied  it  to  the  times  of  the 
Messiah."  Moreover,  this  highly  evangelical  Psalm, 
says  Dr.  Alexander,  "the  prophet  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
Israel,"  or  the  church.  She  is  instructed  to  sing  this 
song,  though  David  and  Asaph  had  been  in  their  graves 
not  far  from  three  hundred  years ;  nor  does  it  belong  to 
their  system  of  Psalmod}^.  Of  course  Isaiah  did  not 
adopt  the  theory  which  limits  the  church  to  "  David  and 
Asaph,"  and  two  or  three  others. 

Let  it  be  observed,  too,  that  all  our  best  commentators, 
Henry,  Scott,  and  others,  interpret  this  song  of  the  times 
of  the  Messiah,  ("  in  that  day,  the  gospel  day,  thou  shalt 
say,")  and  its  instructions  as  eminently  applicable  to  the 
Christian  dispensation.  Can  it  then  be  a  "  corruption  of 
worship"  to  sing  such  a  Divine  song  as  this  12th  chapter 
of  Isaiah! 

The  argument  is  still  more  striking  in  regard  to  chap- 
ter 26.  "  In  that  day  shall  this  song  be  sung"  &c. 
Dr.  Alexander  says,  "It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that 
this  song  was  actually  used  in  praise,  as  it  is  written  in 
the  form  and  manner  of  the  Psalms."  And  he  calls  it 
"  a  song  to  be  sung  by  Israel,"  or  the  church.  Henry 
adds — "  In  that  day,  i.  e.,  the  gospel  day,  which  the  day 
of  the  victories  and  enlargement  of  the  Old  Testament 

*  Introduction,  vol.  4,  p.  160. 


73 

chut  of.  *  *  *     The  land  of  Judai  wi 

gospel  church,"  pounds  to  the 

•t.     The  church,  th  .  fulfilling 

the  infallible  Word,  when  she  no 
She  only  assumes  the  character  in  which 
u  I  be  -  ire  w  >r  I  of  proph 

-v  to  adduce  scores  of   similar  evan- 

•;1  Psalms  from   [saiafa   and  other  prophets,  but  we 

■  dismissiii g  th  .  however, 

ttg  of  B<  sekiah,  [saiah  38  :  9-20 

"That  Hesekiah  Bhould  composes  Psalm/1  remarks  Dr. 

r,  "  is  not  Btrange.  *     *    It  would  be  far  m 

■  ruch  like  David  in  character  and  spirit 

had  not  followed  his  example/'     "  The  inspiration  and 

nical  authority  of  this  production  are  clear  from  it- 

inc  rj»  ration  by  Isaiah  among  his  prophecies/'  *       It  18 

Hezekiah's    Psalm  of  thanksgiving  after  recovery  from 

David  and  the  other  Psalmists  of  his 

had    been  dead   for  three   hundred  years;  but  "  by 

Davi  I'a   instrumentality/1  we  are  told,  "the  church  was 

furnished  with  a  choice  variety  of  Psalms, &c.  adapted  to 

I  circumstances  of  thepri  ver,  and 

of  the  church  of  1 1  1 1.  "'r   What,  then,  was  the  obvious  duty 

of  Beiekiah  ?      Surely  as  u  a  private  believer"  to  adopt 

and   sine  one  of  "that  collection  of  sacred  soncrs  which 

were   to  be  used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others."      I 

this  he  did  not  do.     Neglecting  the   "choice   variety?' 

furnished  by  "the  sweet  Psalmist  of  Israel/'  he  wrr 

rhieownuse.     And  this  song,  be  it  observed, 
place  in  the  "book  of  Psalms." 
!I  sekiah  did  much  more  than  this.     In  the  20th 
verse  of  this  same  chapter,  he  says — "The    Lord  was 
me,  therefore  we  will  sing  my  mmg$  to  the 
Qts  all  the  <hy<  of  my  life  in  the  house 
•  le  Lord."     "The  phrase  4  we  will  ring/"  renn 
]>r.  Alexander,  "refers  to  the  multitude  who  might 

*  Coo 

p,  79, 


74  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

expected  to  join  in  his  public  thanksgiving,  not  only  at 
first,  hut  in  after  ages."  "  The  general  sense,"  he  adds, 
"is  that  of  public  and  perpetual  praise  ;"  and  that  "in 
the  house  of  the  Lord  — or  as  part  of  the  stated  public 
service  of  the  church.  How  unseemly  and  unnatural, 
then,  for  our  brethren,  who,  we  are  glad  to  say  it,  are 
generally  sound  on  the  question  of  inspiration,  to  set 
themselves  in  hostility  to  such  "  inspired  songs  "  as  these 
— songs  whose  public  and  private  use  in  the  praise  of 
God  is  sanctioned  by  the  very  "  Prince  of  the  Prophets." 
We  have  presented  several  specimens  taken  from  a  great 
number  of  Divine  songs.  They  were  either  written  by 
Isaiah  or  received  his  sanction — were  designed  for  the  use 
of  the  church,  and  "God's  worshiping  people  under  both 
the  old  and  the  new  dispensation  were  directed  to  sing 
them."  *  Yet  all  are  excluded  by  these  brethren  !  How 
evident  is  it,  therefore,  that  their  principle  is  not  that  of 
an  "  inspired  Psalmody."  By  their  own  showing,  they 
select  from  the  inspired  volume  some  Psalms,  and  reject 
others — they  testify  in  favor  of  a  certain  number  of  in- 
spired songs,  and  testify  against  a  far  greater  number 
equally  Divine,  "  equally  composed  in  heaven !  "  They 
sing  a  part — others,  they  venture  "  to  lay  aside  as  use- 
less." 

But  perhaps  it  will  be  replied,  that  they  have  "  Divine 
appointment  "  of  the  "  book  of  Psalms  "  to  be  used  ex- 
clusively in  New  Testament  worship  ;  but  no  such  "  ap- 
pointment" for  any  others,  whether  inspired  or  unin- 
spired. This  assertion,  in  both  its  parts,  we  propose  to 
examine  in  our  future  Letters ;  when  we  hope  to  make 
it  more  fully  appear  that  no  such  Divine  warrant  exists 
for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  book  of  Psalms. 

*  Testimony  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church,  p.  44. 


WIIKKE    IS    TIIK    DIVINE    WARRANT. 


LETT  K  II   VII. 

Of    u  DIVOTS     APPOnmfBSTM    of    the    book    or    PSALM 

I    '  ;  i  v    rOH    PRAISE  —  BXAMIBATIOB    01    tiii:     USUAL    A1 

_    |  RBOB.  29  :  30    SO    DITTOS    VPABBABT — PBCULIAB   CBAB- 

iin:    KATTBB    01     HI    PSALMfl —  mint    OTLBS — thkik 

.  PALLA<  [01  B  AS  1  PI  SPB1  D  LL 

<H    POH    SI<  ii  MT1    PH  LIS!    in    thk 

SOB  —  mi:    riii.i:    01    •'  PBBSUMPTIY1    PBOOV 

THAT    IT    SHOULD    SB     USED    POS     PUBLIC    PBAI8B. 

31  v  DeAB  Sir: — We  ask  for  a  Divine  warrant,  a  "thus 

saith  the  Lord,"  either  expressed  or  implied,  by  which  the 

isive  doctrine  can  be  sustained.     And  !  1  it 

to  be  a  privilege  to  say  that  with  such  writers  as  the  late 

Dr.  M1  Master,  the  controversy  is  greatly  narrowed.      II- 

lidlj  acknowledges  "  that  the  use  of  a  faithful  version 

3  iah  26  :  1-9  and  Revelation  5  :9— 18 

won  npi  the  worship  of  God."*    Very  different 

is  the  doctrine  held  by  the  authors  quoted  at  the  bcgin- 

.  of  the  last  Letter. 

litting  for  argument's  sake,  that  in  "Rouse's  para- 
phrase'1 they  sing  "the  Psalms  which  God  has  given," 
without  admixture  of  "human  composition,"  and  with- 
out omission  or  error — the  question  now  is,  "  where  is  the 
i]  authority  for  restricting  the  church  under  her 
lis]     isation  to  the  book  of  Psalms  V 

approach  to  such  a  Divine  appointment, 
we  have  observed,  is  found  in  2  Chronicles  29  : 
uah  the  king  and  the  princes  commanded 
the  '  i  sing  praise  unto  the  Lord  with  the  words 

I  of  Asaph  the  Beer/'j1     This  occurred  in  the 
•  urination  under  that  piou  arly 

warrant  to  sing 
composed  by  David  and  Asaph  in  the  temj 
by  the  Jewish  church.     But  this  direction  to  tfa 

*  Apol 

1  in  proof!  j  brOL 


T6  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

does  not  prove  the  positions  assumed  by  these  brethren 
for  several  reasons  : 

1.  It  proves  too  much,  because  it  equally  establishes 
instrumental  music  in  the  church  of  the  present  period. 
In  verse  25  we  read :  "  Hezekiah  set  the  Levites  in  the 
house  of  the  Lord  with  cymbals,  with  psalteries,  and  with 
harps,  according  to  the  commandment  of  David,  and  of 
Gad  the  king's  seer,  and  of  Nathan  the  prophet."  Here, 
in  the  same  connection,  are  directions  equally  explicit  for 
the  use  of  choirs  and  various  instruments  in  praising 
God  !  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  every  inspired  direc- 
tion for  the  temple  service  is  not  necessarily  a  command 
binding  upon  the  church  of  the  new  dispensation.  Nor 
was  this  appointment  of  a  magnificent  choir  of  several 
thousand  persons  and  numerous  musical  instruments,  a 
mere  temporary  arrangement  for  that  special  reformation. 
"We  find  that  two  hundred  }Tears  later,  at  the  foundation 
of  the  second  temple  under  Ezra,  and  in  the  days  of  the 
prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  "they  set  the  priests  with 
trumpets,  and  the  Levites  the  sons  of  Asaph  with  cym- 
bals, to  praise  the  Lord,  after  the  ordinance  of  David 
king  of  Israel."*  The  obligation  from  such  texts  as 
these,  to  sing  exclusively  with  David  and  Asaph  their 
literal  Psalms,  is  no  more  express  than  to  copy  their  choir 
and  introduce  their  trumpets,  cymbals,  &c.  And  to  make 
this  reasoning  still  more  conclusive,  in  2  Chronicles  7  :  6, 
these  harps,  trumpets,  cymbals,  &c,  are  called,  "instru- 
ments of  music  of  the  Lord,  which  David  the  king  had 
made  to  praise  the  Lord!"  "Instruments  of  mu- 
sic of  the  Lord  I"  The  United  Presbyterian  "  Tes- 
timony "  argues  that  because  the  Psalms  are  called 
"songs  of  the  Lord"  they  must  be  of  perpetual  obliga- 
tion in  praise,  just  as  we  read  of  "the  table  of  the 
Lord,"  "  the  day  of  the  Lord/'  which  are  said  to  imply 
Divine  authority  and  appointment. f     But  the  argument 

*  Ezra  3  :  10. 

f  Testimony,  p.  44.  In  1  Chronicles  16  :  42,  these  trumpets,  cym- 
bals, harps,  &e.,  are  called  "musical  instruments  of  God."  Of  course 
they  are  of  perpetual  appointment  in  Divine  worship! 


WHBRB   18   TIIK   I>IVINK   WARRANT.  77 

Dg  from  the  phrase,  "instruments  of  the 
I.  •  ..'"  ;  i  prove  the  perpetual  obligation  of  harps,  trum- 
i,   \  •.     Thus   we   arrive,   with   the   friends  of  the 
"  at  this  conclusion,  viz.  "that  tie  - 
tions  and  examples  are  ttiU  in  foroty  as  there  is  no  N 
T<  stamen!  intimation  to  the  contrary/'*     If  Christ  and 
bis  apostles  ever  revoked  this  appointment  of  wthe  in- 
struments of  the  Lord,"  let  it  be  fthown.     And  to  render 
the  difficulty  still  more  embarrassing,  one  of  the  favorite 
its  quoted  in  the  u  Testimony  "  is  Psalm  sl   :  '2, 
which  while  it  enjoins  to  ''take   a  Psalm/'   immediately 
adds  :  "  Bring  hither  the  timbrel,  the  pleasant  harp  with 

Nor   need   we   inform    these    testit 
brethren  where  to  find  Bach  inspired  directions  as  the£ 
u  Praise  the  Lord  with  the  Bound  of  a  trumpet;   |  r 
him  with  with  the  psaltery  and  harp ;   praise  him  with 
the  timbrel  and  dance;  praise  him  with  stringed  instru- 
ments and  organs/4    Psalm  150.     If  "the  Psalm"  is 
made  perpetual  and  exclusive  by  the  "ordinance  of  Da- 
vid," why  not  "the  instruments  of  the  Lord"  madeper- 
1  by  the  same  "ordinance  1"    The  argument  from  2 
Chronicles  29  :  30,  thus  proves  too  much,  and  therefore 
thing  to  the  p  >iit.     We  are  far  from  desiring 
v-lnde  the  book  of  Psalms  from  the  devotions  of  the 
church.     ]>ut  the  acts  of  Hezekiah  are  not  the  proofs  on 
which  we  rely  to  designate  the  proper  position  of  that 
ired  and  very  precious  book  in  the  worship  of  God. 
But  we  shall  speak  of  this  more  fully  in  a  futur 
2.  The  argument  from  -  Chronicles  29  :  30  in  favor 
•trine  of  our  brethren,  fails  in  another  point  of 
Thirteen  years  lafc  r,  II-  sekiah  himself  oomp 
a   Psalm  for  the  "house  of  the  Lord,"  and  gave  di 

is  lti  ...    "  Bhould  be  sung  in  the  temple 

-  shown  in  our 
p.    How  then  could  that  pious  prince  have  \ 
Id  and  Asaph  "  as  the  exclu 
the  church?     I  ntlydidnot  so  un- 

*  T  ,44, 

X« 


78  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

derstand  his  own  command  as  recorded  2  Chronicles  29  : 
30.  Of  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  pieces  which  are  said 
to  have  constituted  the  Psalmody  of  the  Jewish  church, 
David  wrote  a  little  over  seventy,  and  Asaph  not  over 
twelve,  probably  only  ten.  The  others  are  variously 
ascribed  to  Heman,  Jeduthun,  Solomon,  Moses  and 
other  authors.  It  is  with  surprise,  therefore,  we  find  in 
the  United  Presbyterian  "Testimony"  the  following  in 
relation  to  the  book  of  Psalms  :  "The  title  given  to  David 
their  penman,  ('  sweet  Psalmist  of  Israel/)  indicates  that 
they  should  be  used,"  &c.  Why  David  was  the  penman 
of  not  more  than  half  of  those  sacred  songs  !  Quite  a 
number  of  them  are  referred,  by  the  most  eminent  au- 
thorities, to  periods  long  after  David  was  in  his  grave ; 
and  some  of  these  songs  to  the  times  during  and  subse- 
quent to  the  seventy  years'  captivity  !  How,  then,  could 
Hezekiah  regard  "  the  words  of  David  and  Asaph  "  as  the 
exclusive  Psalmody  of  the  church  ?  Even  if  "  David 
and  Asaph"  were  the  authors  of  the  whole  "book  of 
Psalms,"  Hezekiah' s  example  is  against,  rather  than  in 
favor  of  the  exclusive  doctrine. 

3.  We  object  to  the  argument  derived  from  2  Chroni- 
cles 29  :  30,  because  it  is  inconsistent  with  2  Chronicles 
35  :  25 — "And  Jeremiah  lamented  for  Josiah;  and  all 
the  singing-men  and  the  singing-wTomen  spake  of  Josiah  in 
their  lamentations  to  this  day,  and  made  them  AN  ordi- 
nance in  Israel  :  and,  behold,  they  are  written  in  the 
Lamentations."  We  regard  this  passage  as  quite  as  good 
authority  for  singing  the  book  of  "  Lamentations"  in  Di- 
vine worship  as  the  acts  of  Hezekiah  for  the  perpetual 
and  exclusive  use  of  "the  words  of  David  and  Asaph  !" 
Yet  this  "  ordinance  in  Israel  "  (or  the  church)  was  made 
under  the  eye  and  approval  of  Jeremiah,  more  than  one 
hundred  years  after  the  acts  of  Hezekiah  in  2  Chronicles 
29.  So  evident  is  it  that  the  church  of  that  period  did 
not  receive  "  the  words  of  David  and  Asaph  "  as  her  ex- 
clusive Psalmody. 

For  such  reasons  as  these  we  are  constrained  to  regard 


WH1  ■  0 1:    DIVINE   WARRANT.  79 

rrant  for  the 
I  in 
<>ur  day  ;  mud  bor- 

i         c  that  pur] 

g  it iii in  r  ai .  miliar  chai 

!ar  end 
were  intruded."*     Now  we 
admit  that  in  this  book  the  "glory  of  Jehoyah 
Id  the  buI 

ii"  Buoh  suit  r  in  the  i 

the  Scriptures ?     Arc  all  the  "Psalms,  hymns 
rg  "  composed  bj  aiah,  and 

.  i  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament,  u  un- 
fit to  bt  sung?"     Was  not  much  of  this  suited 

I  in  the  form  of  Psalms  and  hymns  and  used  by 
men,  who  nanded  the  church  "to 

1'  r  proof  of  these  points  s>  i 
| 

heart  will  cordially  respond  to 

9ai  I  in  praise  of  the  book  of  Psalms,  noth- 

than  to  prove  that  large  porti  lany 

of  tl  rlie  historical  parts 

of  I  r  prophets,  and  in  that  view,  at 

least,  quite  as  rang."     For  example,  see 

'.  -.   I    5,   I     '.  to.      What 

D  poetry"  than  the  fol- 

He  brought  amoi  -us  of  flic?, 

Which  <li<l  '  noy  : 

d  lice 
.!  their  bordi 

in  and  Kison  strand  ; 

fell 


30  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

My  wounds  uo  siink  and  are  corrupt; 
My  folly  makes  it  so. 

Moab  s  my  washing  pot ;  my  shoe 
I'll  over  Ed oru  throw. 

Whoso  belly  with  thy  treasure  hid 
Thou  fill'st — they  children  have 
In  plenty.     Of  their  goods  the  rest 
They  to  their  children  leave. 

It  was  no  doubt  in  view  of  such  stanzas  as  the  fore- 
going, that  Prof.  Beveridge,  of  Xenia,  wrote  as  follows  : 
u  A  few  expressions  are  employed  which  can  scarcely  be 
considered  as  suitable  in  dignity  either  to  the  ordinance 
or  the  matter  of  praise;  such  as  'Fm  like  a  broken 
pot/  'as  fat  as  grease  they  be/  '  which  admiration  breed/ 
1  the  hairy  scalp/  &c.  This  language  Dr.  Beveridge  re- 
ported and  published  as  the  chairman  of  a  committee  of 
the  Associate  Synod/'* 

It  would  be  easy  to  collect  many  parallel  specimens. 
We  are  not  now  complaining  of  the  verse  of  Rouse, 
which  some  have  called  "discord  and  jargon/'  Neither 
have  we  the  slightest  objection  to  these  and  hundreds  of 
similar  passages  as  they  stand  in  God's  inspired  word. 
The  only  question  now  before  us  relates  to  the  most  "suit- 
able matter  "  for  praise.  And  in  view  of  such  passages 
it  is  obvious  that  we  cannot  speak  of  many  parts  of  these 
Divine  songs  in  such  terms  as  sublime  strains  of  Eastern 
poetry.  The  preacher  rises  in  the  sacred  desk,  and  com- 
mences to  read : 

I  like  an  owl  in  desert  am, 
That  nightly  there  doth  moan. 

"When  they  me  saw,  they  from  me  fled, 
Ev'n  so  I  am  forgot. 
As  men  are  out  of  mind  when  dead ; 
I'm  like  a  broken  pot. 

That  in  the  blood  of  enemies 
Thy  foot  imbrued  may  be  ; 

And  of  thy  dogs  dipped  in  the  same 
Tho  tongues  thou  mayest  see. 

*  Evangelical  Repository,  April,  1S51. 


WH1  LRBANT.  81 

ilia  which  B 

.  I 

lied  Bublime  strains 

I  !•  - 
v.  •  have  ii"  u  Diviu 
und  ad  Bimilar  1 

ber  than  • 

times  I  simplicity  of  mane 

But  in  the  I  under  th  '.'  is 

HO   D  ft    to    the     Psalms    to    say    that    such 

is  suitabl    for  public  song    as  many 
bher  Scriptures,   than   it  is  a  reproach   to 
say  that  Dent.  -'-I  :   1,  though  r 
to  the  Jews,  is  not  the  most  suitable  part  of  "all 
i]  ture  which  is  profitable  for  instruction^ 
from  the  pulpit  !     Nothing  woul  11     easii  r  than  to  d 
other  texts  which   I  bhren  th< 

h  "given  by  inspiration " — and  thus 

which  they  cha  I  >r. 

Wat 

They  lay  <  g  publicly  read — 

we  I  praise.     Which  is   the 

iime,  goo  d  determine. 

;   to  "  thi  titles  which  the  Holy 
Divin 
an<l  which,  we  ar 
which  tfa  "  The    1 1 

a  the  title,  ' 
ad  by  this  titli 

rd   'Psa 
ion,  and  i  i  a  word  whi<  h 

• 

for  the  most  part,  the  I  a 
wer  and 

*  Pi 
f  P« 


82  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

were  therefore  called  Tehillim,  Praises.  But  does  it  ne- 
cessarily follow,  that  as  a  system  of  Psalmody  they  are 
divinely  required  to  be  sung  under  the  present  dispensa- 
tion, in  every  thought,  sentiment  and  expression  ?  No 
more  than  "all  Scripture  given  by  inspiration  of  God  " 
is  binding  to  he  read  in  public  worship.  Besides,  these 
brethren  themselves  "  lay  aside  as  useless "  the  20th 
verse  of  the  72d  Psalm,  most  of  the  inspired  titles,  &c, 
as  already  shown.  Again,  if  the  general  title  of  the 
book  is  of  any  avail  in  this  argument,  we  must  go  to  the 
original  Hebrew.  There  we  find  that  instead  of  being 
called  "  book  of  Psalms/'  the  title  is  "book  of  Praises." 
Tehillim,  the  Hebrew  plural  of  Tehillah,  is  not  the 
word  usually  rendered  Psalms.  It  is  the  separate  title  of 
but  one  Psalm  (145th)  in  the  whole  book,  and  that  in 
the  singular.  So  far  as  we  have  observed,  it  is  never 
in  any  other  connection,  translated  by  the  Septuagint 
Psalmos,  Psalm,  but  generally  by  a  word  meaning  praise, 
or  praises.  Sepher  Tehillim,  or  rather  "Tehillim/1  is  the 
Hebrew  title,  and  the  exact  rendering  is  "book  of 
Praises/'  *  not  "book  of  Psalms." 

We  admit  that  the  title  Bibles  Psalmon,  "  book  of 
Psalms/'  in  the  Septuagint  or  Greek  translation  is  cited 
in  the  New  Testament.  But  we  shall  show  presently  that 
this  fact  does  not  necessarily  give  it  Divine  sanction.  And 
the  propriety  of  some  more  general  title,  such  as  "  book 
of  Praises,"  is  obvious  ;  because  several  of  these  songs 
have  the  title  "  a  Prayer  ;  "  such  as  the  17th,  "  Prayer  of 
David,"  the  90th,  "  Prayer  of  Moses,"  &c.  To  show 
the  exceedingly  various  character  of  these  compositions,  . 
learned  men  have  classified  them  as  follows  :  "  Sixty-six 
are  prayers,  twenty-nine  are  songs  of  thanksgiving,  thirty 
are  Psalms  of  praise  and  adoration,  forty  are  on  general 
topics  of  instruction,  ten  are  prophetical,  and  three  are  his- 
torical."! Such  is  the  various  character  of  these  "Praises." 

*  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  4,  p.  115. 

f  Dr.  Scott  says,  "  The  Hebrew  name  of  this  book  is   Tehillim  ov 
Praises." 


WHXE1   I-   Tin-:  DIVOT!  WARRANT.  83 

Thus  it  seems  thai   of    this   collection   of    Pr 
Praises,    Prophecies,   History,  Doctrine,  &o.,  the   only 
original  and  inspired  title,  is  "book  of  Praises."     But 

i  without  Psalms  and  tinging t  What 

the  boo*  itself  J     "Praise  God  with  the  Bound  of 

the  trumpet ;  praise  him  with  the  timbrel  and  dana  ."  &o. 

Psalm  150.     "  An  1  David  danced  before  the  Lord  with 

all    his  might."  2  Samuel  G  :   14.     Besides,  is  there  no 

ptable  praise  in  prayer y  which  forms  so  large  a  pro- 

-n  of  the  book?     We  do  not  commonly  sing  our 

prayers,  though  two  of  the  constituent  elements  of  prayer 

are  "-adoration  and  thanksgiving/1      So  our  Catechism 

teaches   us   in   the   "  conclusion  of  the  Lord's  prayer," 

"that  in  our  prayers  we  praise   Him;"  and  the  same 

is  true  when  the  Psalms  are  read  from  the  pulpit  and  in 

family  worship. 

nil  title,  "book  of  Praises/'  does  obviously 

include  all  these  methods  of  praising  God,  and  therefore 

DO  infallible  indication  of  the  particular  use  for 

which  the   Psalms  were  intended,  especially  no  "  Divine 

warrant  "  for  their  exclusive  use  in  singing  praise. 

But  we  are  told  that  the  Holy   Spirit  by  quoting  in 

the  New    Testament    the  Septuagint  translation  of   the 

original  title  (Biblos  Redman))  "  appropriates    to   this 

collection  of  songs  the  title  "  book  of  Psalms."*     We 

concede  that  it  is  so  quoted,  but  we  deny  the  inference. 

All  Bound  Biblical  critics  admit  that  the  translation  of 

Old    Testament   in  the    Greek    Septuagint  is  very 

a  grossly  erroneous.     It  is  also  a  settled  point  that 

k*  the  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament  often  make 

a  from  the  Septuagint,  even  when  notoriously  in 

•.  provided  the  blunders  were  of  such  a  nature  as 

ial  proofs  for  which  the  citations 

were  made."  f     It  would  be  easy  to  fill  pages  with  quo- 

kblish  these  points. 

*  Prenlj  "n  Psalmody,  p.  7.:. 

t  Horne'i  [ntrodiietion,  roL  2.  p.  $86.  TTorno  adds,  "The  Pnlmi 
an<l  the  Propbetl  wen  tnmsl.-ifrd  \>y  men  every  tray  unequal  to  the 
task."     lie  means  in  the  Septuagint 


84  LETTERS    OX   PSALMODY. 

"What,  then,  was  the  case  under  consideration  ?  The 
inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament  using  the  Greek 
language,  merely  wished  to  refer  to  the  "book  of  Praises" 
by  its  general  title.  The  error  of  the  Septuagint  in 
calling  it  "  book  of  Psalms/'  could  not  in  the  least 
weaken  the  reference,  or  in  any  way  affect  it.  According 
to  their  usual  custom,  therefore,  they  quoted  it  as  they 
found  it,  sufficiently  correct  for  their  purpose.  But 
the  mere  fact  of  quotation  in  this  case,  no  more  proves"* 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  appropriates  the  Septuagint  title, 
and  thereby  gives  it  Divine  sanction,  than  scores  of  simi- 
lar citations  by  New  Testament  writers  prove  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  approves  the  grossest  blunders  in  the  learned 
languages,  and  in  fact  adopts  sheer  nonsense. 

N<  r  is  it  of  any  weight  in  this  discussion,  that  "the 
word  Psalmis  of  Greek  derivation,  and  signifies  to  sing." 
The  truth  is,  that  while  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  some- 
times thus  used,  the  original  primary  meaning  conveys 
the  idea  of  playing  on  an  instrument.  This,  too,  is  the 
original  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  verb  zamar  (from  which 
comes  mizmor,  a  Psalvi),  viz.  "  to  touch,  or  strike  the 
chords  of  an  instrument,  to  play,  Greek  psallein  ;  and 
hence  to  sing,  to  chant,  as  accompanying  an  instrument."* 

The  title  "  Psalm/'  therefore,  proves  too  much  for  these 
brethren.  As  derived  from  the  Old  Testament  worship 
it  would  sanction  in  our  churches  the  use  of  instrumental 
music,  for  such  is  the  uniform  history  of  Psalmody 
under  the  ancient  dispensation,  especially  in  the  public 
service  of  the  church.  The  use  of  the  title  "  Psalm," 
no  more  proves  that  all  the  Psalms  are  now  to  be  sung 
literally  in  every  sentiment  and  expression,  than  it 
proves  that  all  are  to  be  accompanied  with  stringed  in- 
struments, organs,  harps,  cymbals,  trumpets,  &c,  espe- 
cially since  fcke  Psalmist  himself  equally  exhorts  to  the 
use  of  all  these  methods  of  praise,  Psalm  150 ;  and  Heze- 
kiah's  precept  and  example  include  the  use  of  these  "  in- 
struments of  God." 

•  Gesenius,  Hebrew  Lex.,  in  verba. 


WHER1   IB  Tin:   DIVINE   WARRANT.  85 

i  lent 
le  i>  the  argument  from  the  original   "titles"  of 
And  '  i  our 

it  be  observed  thai  in  Hebrew,  one  of  the 
often  Qsed  for  particular  Psalms,  is  Skirf 
Bg.      It  is  found  some  thirty  times,  and   in  the  origi- 
nal Beemfl  to  refer  to  On  use  of  the  voice.     Hence  we  read 
•  the  daughters  of  song/'  and  it  is  employed  to  denote 
•  t*  singing,  as  in  2  Chronicles  28  :  18.     Now  if 
the  general  title,  "book  of  Psalms,"  proves  that  they 
were  u  intended  to  be  sung,"  then  by  the  same  reason- 
ing the    genera]   title,    Shir  Hcuhirim,   "the  song  of 
a  that  "  Solomon's  Seng"  is  in  all  ages  to  be 
suny  in  public  worship  !     This  result,  we  think,  is  legiti- 
mately reached  by  the  logic  of  our  brethren  themselves. 
Here  is   an   inspired  soivj  with  one  of  the  titles  of  the 
Psalms — more  than  this,  it  is  "  the  song  of  songs,"  "the 
most  excellent  of  songs  !  "      It  is  pronounced  by  its  au- 
thor to  all  the  Psalms    which    bear  the  same 
title,  for  it  is  "most  excellent!"     Surely  then  it  is,  it 
must  be  "intended  to  be  sung  in  the  worship  of  God." 
In  addition,  "  this  is  most  evident  from  the  peculiar  cha- 
racter of  its  matter"  *     Dr.  Scott,  that  eminently  pious 
aud   judicious  commentator,  well   remarks,  "No  other 
poem  in  the  world  so  well  describes  the   state  of  the 
believer's  heart,  and  is  so  adapted  to  excite  admiring* 
love  to  God  our  Saviour,  as  this."    The 
subjects  of  the  whole  book  are  Christ  and  his  church, 
I   w.'ll  does   it  deserve  the  inspired  title,   "song  of 
igs,"  or  "  the  most  excellent  of  songs."     Why,  then, 
at,    if    the    title-logic    is   worth  anything,  is  it 
excluded  from  the  Psalmody  of  these  brethren  ? 

And  to  enforce  this  conclusion,  hear  the  celebrated 
Ralph  Krskine,  one  of  the  original  fathers  and  founders 
of  '  late  or  Seceder  Presbytery  in   Scotland — 

"  When  the  motion  was  made  of  turning  all  Ou  Scripture 
sonjs  into  common  metre,   for   the   same  use  witii 

*  £k 
8 


86  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

tiie  Psalms  of  David,  I  was  also  urged  to  make  a  ver- 
sion of  this  song,  &c."*  Again  he  says,  "  This  sacred 
book  of  Scripture  (the  Song  of  Solomon)  contains  the 
sweetest  and  noblest  instances  of  the  grace  of  Christ 
toward  his  church  and  people. "  And  in  stating  and  de- 
fending the  nature  of  his  previous  paraphrase,  he  adds, 
"  If  more  seem  to  be  said  upon  any  verse  than  is  directly 
imported  in  it,  I  hope  it  will  be  reckoned  no  great  fault, 
if  what  is  said  be  deducible  from  it,  or  necessary  for 
the  further  explication  of  it,  and  for  adapting  this  para- 
phrase  upon  an  Old  Testament  song  to  a  New  Testament 
dispensation"^  So  obvious  is  it,  that  Ralph  Erskine  and 
his  compeers  never  dreamed  of  "  a  Divine  appointment 
of  a  fair  and  literal  version' '  of  the  Psalms  as  of  exclu- 
sive authority  for  all  ages.  In  regard  to  these  topics, 
Erskine  held  the  principles  of  the  Presbyterian  church — 
and  the  views  of  his  modern  successors  are  recent 
"  human  discoveries/'  Thus  evident  is  it  that  the  Asso- 
ciate church  of  this  country  have  turned  aside  from  the 
good  "  old  paths''  in  which  their  fathers  walked,  in  the 
purest  and  best  days  of  Reformation  ! 

But  perhaps  some  one  may  reply  that  "  the  Song  of 
Solomon"  was  never  employed,  so  far  as  we  know,  in 
the  temple  worship.  Very  true,  and  therefore  the 
proof  is  complete  that  the  use  of  the  title  Shir,  a  song, 
though  employed  to  designate  about  thirty  of  the  Psalms, 
settles  nothing  in  favor  of  their  perpetual  use  as  the 
matter  of  praise ;  since  the  superlative  form  of  the  same 
title  did  not  prove  "  the  song  of  songs"  to  be  the  matter 
of  praise,  not  even  to  the  Jews.  Of  course  Dr.  Pressly's 
title  argument  falls  to  the  ground. 

*  He  elsewhere  says — "  The  first  public  recommendation  was  by  the 
Associate  Synod,  anno  1747."     Works,  vol.  10,  p.  425. 
f  Works,  vol.  10,  p.  316. 


-    THE    DIVINE    WARRANT. 


LETTER   VIII. 

.  QBD  —  "DITIS  El  I  "    IV    PAU1  ' 

n   of  rHfl    - 

I  r.KS  THK     F\i    r    THAT    TUT.     M 

:.«»vi:    THEM    To     isi: 
SS  —  VARIOl  B 

My   Deai  Sir: — In  my  last  I  commenced   the  in- 
quiry:  Where  do  our  brethren  discover  "a  Divin< 
rant  "  for  restricting  the  praises  of  the  church  under  her 
|  •   dispensation,  to   the  book  of  Psalms'/     Such  a 

-  not  found  in  the  acts  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chroni- 
s  •_  r  yet  in  the  general  title  of  the         k 

proved,     [t is  granted,  for  the 
j  ament,   that   they  employ  in   their  w 

dds  which  I  tod  has  .  ••  the  Psalms 

of  inspiration,"  "th  in  heaven,"  (all 

which  we  utterly  deny  and  hai  to  be  tar 

ig  tii is.  tii  retorna  :   \ 

Lord,,j   which  hath  i  Established  in 
this  one  book  of  songs  as  her  only,  all-suffi- 
tual   Psalm  book  to  the  end  of  time? 
v  the  question — and  we  proec- 

d  which  our  brethn  n   s  itly  to 

S8umes  the  form  of  an  express  command  of  the 

N 

In  I  s3:  16,  Paul  exhorts  the  church  as  fol- 

••  L  '  the  word  of  (  brist  dwell  in  you  richly  in  all 

bing  and  admonishing  one  another,  in  |  s 

your  beartfl  to  the 

■    :  19.  •     [I   is  tru  . 

0 

luty  and  privil 


88  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

church  to  praise  God  not  only  with  Psalms,  but  with  any 
other  "  hymns  and  songs"  found  in  the  inspired  writings. 
But  our  brethren  have  endeavored  to  turn  this  old  Pres- 
byterian battery  against  us  in  the  following  method, 
which  wc  will  state  as  briefly  as  possible  :  "When  Paul 
was  addressing  the  Colossians,"  they  argue,  "he  wrote 
in  the  Greek  language,  and  the  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament  then  used  generally  in  the  Christian  church 
was  the  Greek  Septuagint.  Hence  when  Paul  enjoined 
the  use  of  '  Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs/  he  mere- 
ly quoted  in  Greek  the  Septuagint  translation  of  several 
of  the  Hebrew  titles  of  the  Psalms,  i.  e.,  he  wrote  the 
Greek  Psahnois,  humnois,  odais,  instead  of  the  Hebrew 
titles  Mizmorim,  Teh  ill im,  Shirim,  both  sets  of  terms 
meaning  Psalms,  hymns  and  songs. "  Hence,  they  argue, 
Paul's  injunction  to  sing  "Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual 
songs,"  is  equivalent  to  a  command  to  sing  the  various 
Psalms  of  David  which  in  Paul's  Greek  Bible  bore  these 
titles,  being  correct  translations  of  the  three  Hebrew  ti- 
tles, Mizmorim,  Tehlllimr  Shirim* 

But  this  argument  fails  to  produce  conviction  for  sev- 
eral reasons  : 

1.  It  is  an  error  to  assert,  as  these  brethren  do,  that 
the  three  Hebrew  titles,  Mizmorim,  Tehittim,  Shirim, 
"are  particularly  used  to  designate  these  different  com- 
positions," viz.  "the  sacred  poems  of  the  book  of 
Psalms. "f  Tehillah,  (the  singular  of  Tehillim,)  which 
they  say  means  hymn,  (Greek,  humnos,)  is  the  title  of 
only  one  Psalm  (145th),  and  is  not  rendered  by  the  Sep- 
tuagint humnos,  but  ainesis,  that  is,  praise.  Our  English 
Bibles  supply  the 'word  Psalm,  and  read  it  "Psalm  of 
praise."  The  plural  Tehillim,  is  never  used  for  a  title 
of  a  particular  Psalm,  but  only  as  the  general  title  of  the 
whole  book;  and  the  Septuagint  translates  it  not  humnoi, 
hymns,  but psalmoi,  Psalms.     This  spoils  the  whole  ar- 

*  Pressly  on  Psalmody,   (abridged)  p.    CO ;    Testimony  of  United 
Presbyterian  church,  p.  15. 
f  Pressly  on  Psalmody. 


WHERE    18    Tin:    DIVINE   WARRANT.  89 

guinent.     If  Paul  used  tin4  Septuagint  translation,  he 

could  do!  possibly  have  meant  the  term  humnoi,  hymns, 

to  be  a  translation  of   Tthittim,  because  the  £         igint 

do  n  t  bo  translate  TehxUxm;  they  translate  it  psalmoiJ 

Pba]  [t   follows,  therefore,  that  if  the  apostle     in- 

the  Hebrew  terms  as  rendered  into  Oi 

.  he  must  have  exhorted  the  Col<  Bsians 

is  and  spiritual  Bongs" — for 

lagint  translation  of  both  Mxzmorim  and  TehiU 

Urn  is 

'i  :  So  far  is  it  from  being  correct   to   say   that 
"the   Hebrew  terms  for   Psalms,  hymns  and  songs  are 

Hcularly  used  to  designate  the  different  com] 
of  tl  ;'  Psalms,  that  th<  re  are  five  or  six  of  ; 

titles  besides  the  three  mentioned,  all  but  one  of  which 
are  used  rly  than  Tehillah,  one  of  them  as 

much  as  twelve  times.     It  is  incorrect,  therefore,  to  ai 

licularly  used. 
2.  The  term  humnos,  hymn,  is  never  used  by  th 

Listinctive  title  of  any  Psalm.     We  read  iu 
d  Paalntj  Psalm  of  David,  but  n 
hum  n  of  David. :       1 1  is  1  that  th 

tive   plural,  humnois,  is  1"'  mid  in  the  title  of  Psalm  G7, 

and   other hut   what   does   it   mean?     Does  it   moan 

ad  the  title  of  Psalm  67  :  "To  the  chief 

musician  on   neginothj  a    Psalm  of   David."     Here  the 

int  translate  neginoth  by  humnou,  hymns !     And 

what  is  the  meaning  of  neginoth  t     It 

instruuu  nts  to  be  played  on  by  the  fing  re."    This  is  the 

by   the   8 
still — in  Psalm  4,  the  Bame  Septuagint  trans 

fealms  I     So  that  t!  wish  mu- 

h  Psalms  and  h 

.    Paul   must   have  ex- 

*  In    I 
our  I 

litn.    \ 


00  LETTERS    OX    PSALMODY. 

another  with  Psalms,  i.  e.,  with  neginotli,  or  "  stringed  in- 
struments;" (2)  with  neginoth agoin,  i.  e.3  with  u stringed 

instruments,"  or  hymns;  and  (3)  with  spiritual  sougs. 
And  our  brethren  would  persuade  us  that  the  apostle 
quoted  these  absurd  Greek  titles  from  the  Septuagint,  and 
gave  them  his  inspired  sanction  !*  Well  might  the  very 
learned  Home  pronounce  the  Septuagint  translation  of 
the  Psalms  to  be  worthless  for  purposes  of  criticism.        * 

3.  As  to  the  third  of  the  titles  supposed  to  have  been 
cited  by  the  apostle,  viz.  odais  pneumatikois,  "  spiritual 
songs,"  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  there  is  no  such  title  in 
the  Septuagint — of  course  Paul  could  not  have  quoted  it. 
The  term  ode,  a  song,  is  one  of  the  Septuagint  titles,  but 
that  is  not  the  same  thing  with  u  spiritual  songs." 

But  granting  for  the  present,  that  when  the  apostle 
exhorted  to  the  use  of  "  Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual 
songs,"  he  intended  to  quote  the  pscUmoi,  humnoi,  odai 
of  the  Septuagint — what  does  it  prove  ?  Certainly  not 
that  he  had  exclusive  reference  to  these  titles  in  the  book 
of  Psalms.  The  two  last  terms,  humnos  and  ode,  are 
used  by  the  Septuagint  to  designate  other  portions  of  the 
inspired  writings )  and  why  may  not  Paul  have  referred 
to  those  other  " hymns  and  songs"  not  embraced  in  the 
book  of  Psalms  ?  Thus  in  Isaiah  42  :  10  :  "  Sing  unto 
the  Lord  a  new  song"  (Septuagint, humnon.)  Why  may 
not  Paul  have  had  in  his  eye  the  sublime  and  beautiful 
address  of  Moses  (Deuteronomy  32),  delivered  just  be-  . 
fore  his  death,  and  in  the  previous  chapter  called  ode  by 
the  Septuagint,  not  less  than  three  times  ?  Thus  chapter 
31  :  19  :  "  Now  therefore  write  ye  this  song,"  &e. 
Why  may  not  the^  apostle  have  had  his  eye  upon  such 
humnoi  and  odai,  "hymns  and  songs"  as  these,  as  they 
are  found  outside  of  the  book  of  Psalms  ?  If  he  had 
reference  to  such  as  these,  then  what  becomes  of  the  ar- 
gument of  these  brethren  ?  Paul's  exhortation  to  sing 
"hymns   and  spiritual  songs"  becomes  an  inspired  au- 

•  "  The  Psalms  (of  the  Septuagint)  were  translated  by  men  every- 
way unequal  to  the  task." — Home's  Introduction,  vol.  2,  p.  168. 


LNT.  91 

thori 

froin  a  d 
g  though  ho  d( 

InA  aicd  that  rotation  v, 

"  These   diff 
1  i  3a]  ..-.  hyn 

ntially  the  son 
uth  ibstantially  of  the  Bame  im [>< jrt.^*     In  view 

of  all  thi  '  ia  plain  that  this  argument 

from  the  Septuagint  titles  ia  an  utter  failure. 

argument  from  "the  peculiar  matter/1  and  from 
"th  of  the  Psalms,  having  been  revk 

a  third  point : 
(iii.)  "  From  the  fact  that  God  has  given  to  his  church  a 

r  to  be  the  DWine  will 
that  this  Bhould  be  used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others 

of  this  statement,  no  Pr 
will  Lially  maintain  that  the   Pfi 

whi.  i  to  the  J 

church,  by  their  glorious  Author. 
portion  of  the  inspired  records. J     N 
it  be  denied  that  many  of  tl  sung 

in  the  temple  service  by  a  magnificent  choir  of  several 

i 
instrum  tntal  music — □  b,  pr  bably,  as  the  world  d 

ion  of  tl: 
i  impleted,  about  three  hundred  y< 
the]  Hezekiah   they  were  collected  into  a  | 

]>ut  we  hav<  a  to 

believe  that  the  church,  either  then  or  for  i  pre- 

the  preci  ined 

in  the  book  of  Psalms.      On  the  contrary,  the    example 

*  P  Ml. 

through  many   oenturieSj  an-1  they 


92  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

of  Hezekiah  in  preparing  and  ordering  the  singing  of  a 
song  or  songs,  and  of  Jeremiah  in  sanctioning  the  sing- 
ing of  the  Lamentations  for  Josiah,  proves  the  very 
reverse.  And  when  it  is  inferred  from  such  premises, 
that  the  same  exact  system  of  songs,  so  many,  no  more 
and  no  less,  must  necessarily  be  the  Psalmody  of  the 
Christian  dispensation  to  the  end  of  the  world — there  is 
a  gap  in  the  logic.  There  is  no  positive  proof,  not  even 
strong  presumptive  evidence,  which  will  justify  such  a 
conclusion.  For  much  proof  to  the  contrary,  see  our 
Letter  VI. 

With  the  statements  already  made  before  our  minds, 
we  open  the  New  Testament.  Do  we  there  discover  no 
forms  of  public  and  private  praise,  except  in  the  words 
of  the  book  of  Psalms  ?  Far  otherwise.  The  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  quote  these  sacred  songs  not  less 
than  sixty  times,  but  never  in  any  instance  do  they  cite  a 
comjilete  song  of  praise ;  only  in  three  or  four  instances 
do  they  introduce  a  brief  extract  as  a  part  of  their  ex- 
pressions of  praise,  and  in  every  such  case  they  amend 
by  additions  of  their  own.  Nor  do  they  ever  speak  of 
the  book  as  a  system  of  Psalmody.  The  apostles  and 
our  Lord  often  mention  the  Psalms,  the  book  of  Psalms 
and  David,  without  quoting  them,  but  they  are  commonly 
referred  to  precisely  like  any  other  portions  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  as  they  doubtless  would  have  re- 
ferred to  "the  Song  of  songs,"  but  not  associated  with 
singing  at  all.  Thus  when  citing  the  22d  Psalm,  on  the 
subject  of  the  crucifixion,  the  evangelist  says  :  "That  it 
might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet,  They 
parted  my  garments,  and  for  my  vesture  they  cast  lots." 
See  for  similar  examples,  Matthew  13  :  35,  2G  :  35; 
Luke  2  :  42,  24  :  44.  In  truth,  if  the  Psalms  had  never 
been  sung  at  all,  the  New  Testament,  in  such  quotations 
as  these,  could  not  have  observed  a  more  profound  silence 
on  the  subject  of  their  "particular  designation."  James 
indeed  exhorts:  "Is  any  merry,  let  him  sing  Psalms." 
But  the  word  "Psalms  "  is  not  in  the  original  —  it  is 


WHERE   H   Tin:    MVIXK   WARRANT. 

simply  "let  him  Bing,,J  psalleto.     Nor  if  he  had  us  1 

the  i  lit  Lave  in  cessarily  c     - 

fined  his  meaning  to  the  book  of  Psalms.    The  term 
a  much  wider  meaning. 

The  Bame  result  is  reached  wh<  d  we  observe  in  what 
og  the  New  Testament  saints  were  accustom*  I 
tpress  their  fervent  thanksgivings  to  their  Creator  and 
Redeemer.      How  did  Mary  and  Zacharias  and  Elizal 
prai&    Q  dJ     By  rep   tting  one  of  the  Old  Testam 

Ims?     No  Buch  thing.     Read  the  record  in  Luke  1. 
"What  BOrt  of  a  BOng  was  that  which  John  heard  BUD 
the  presence  of  "Him  that  Bittetfa  on  the  throne?'1  Was 
it  one  of  the   Psalms   of  David?     Listen — "Thou   art 
worthy  to  take  the  *  for  thou  wast  slain  an  I 

hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  bluod.  *  *  *  Worthy 
is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  to  receive  power  and  riches 
and  wisdom  and  glory  and  blessing."  gondii) 
himself,  when  about  to  commence  hi-  rerord  of  the  won- 
derful mysteries  of  the  closing  book  of  inspiration,  as 
though  he  could  not  restrain  his  emotions,  breaks  forth, 
u  Unto  him  that  loved  us  and  washed  us  from  our 
in  his  own  b!  ire  merely  spccinn  ns    f 

the  Psalmody  which  meets  our  eye  the  instant  we 
the  New  Testament.     What  person,  having  r< 
the    example    of    primitive   Christianity,   can    have  any 
doubt  as  to  the  duty  and  privilege  of  - 
as  tie 

There  is,  as  it  seems  to  us.  a  vast  amount  of 
current  on  the.-e  topics.      Thus,"If  the.-  .'ued 

*  In  •  :]\c  four 

"111  »f  David  are  peculiarly  adapted  to  U 

. 
and  full  of  the  grace  and  spirit  of  t! 
••  This,"  he  . 

•  i 
our  P 

go  nncfa  agreeable  matt 

and  I-  Works,  roL  I 


94  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

in  the  book  of  Psalms  were  given  to  the  church  to  be  used 
in  the  praises  of  God,  it  will  then  be  admitted  that  the 
point  in  dispute  is  settled. "  *  What  point  is  settled? 
No  one  denies  that  the  Psalms  were  given  to  the  ancient 
Jewish  church,  and  for  the  most  part  to  be  sung;  but 
does  that  settle  the  further  question,  "  Do  these  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  Psalms  compose  the  exclusive  Psalmody  of 
the  church  under  her  new  dispensation  ?  "  Take  a  pa- 
rallel specimen  of  reasoning — The  written  revelation  of 
God  to  the  ancient  church,  consisted  of  "  the  Law,  the 
Prophets  and  the  Psalms."  God  was  to  be  worshiped 
by  the  public  reading  of  these  Scriptures — they  were 
given  for  this  purpose.  Y\7hat  point  does  this  settle? 
Not  surely  that  all  other  portions  of  Divine  revelation 
in  the  New  Testament  must  be  excluded  from  the  public 
reading  in  the  house  of  God. 

Here  is  another  example  of  bad  logic.  "The  book  of 
Psalms,  whence  was  it?  From  heaven  or  of  men?  If 
from  heaven,  why  not  use  it?"~j-  We  reply — "  The  Law 
and  the  Prophets,  whence  were  they?"  "If  from 
heaven,  why  not  use  them"  to  the  exclusion  of  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures?  The  heavenly  origin  of  the  book 
of  Psalms  no  one  doubts,  and  we  rejoice  " to  use  it"  for 
every  purpose  for  which  it  was  designed  under  the  new 
dispensation.  But  that  it  was  intended  to  be  an  exclu- 
sive system  of  Psalinod}r  to  all  ages,  is  tlie  very  point  to 
be  proved.  Of  course  the  argument  from  its  Divine 
origin  is  a  mere  begging  of  the  question.  "  The  Song  of 
Solomon,"  and  all  the  other  songs  and  hymns  scattered 
throughout  the  pages  of  the  Bible,  are  all  "  from  heaven." 
Does  it  follow  that  they  are  all  to  be  used  in  public 
praise  ?  If  our  brethren  will  follow  their  own  reasoning 
to  this  result,  it  will  narrow  the  discussion  to  a  very 
small  point. 

Another  specimen.  u  When  we  consider  how  fre- 
quently the  apostles  introduce  the  Psalms  in  their  dis- 

*  Presely  on  Psalmody,  p.  70. 

i  Testimony  of  the  United  Presbyterian  church,  p.  44. 


WHBBfl   IS   Tin:   DIVINE   WARRANT.  95 

com  thai  they  r 

the  matter  of  these  sacred  -  ry  Buitable  to  be 

employed  in  the  n  •■"  "'      But  the  fact 

that  the  propt  .  tu  nth/  quol    I 

in  the  New  Testament  than  the  Psalms,  Of  course  it 
follows  that  uthey  are  even  more  suitable"  for  public 
prais  Liar  errors  in  reas  >ning  are  very  frequent 

in  connection  with  the  inspiration  of  the  Psalms,  and  it 
i-  boldly  affirmed  that  "no  argument  is  needed  to  prove 
that  Rouse's  version  is  (It'-  word  of  Godl"1[  But  if 
\W\<  were  not  the  Law  and  the  Prophi  ts 

"th  I  "     But  this  does  n«>tpr<»ve  that  they 

1  from  the  pulpit,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
whole  New  Testament  !  To  allege  the  u  Divine  appoint- 
ment'1 o(  the  Psalms  to  he  sung  to  solve  the  difficulty, 
is  a  Bheer  petitio  principii — a  begging  of  the  question. 
Much  importance  in  the  argument,  seems  to  be  at- 
■d  to  the  circumstance,  that  the  Psalms  have  been 
collected  into  a  separate  "  book"  in  the  great  volume 
of  inspiration,  and  the  inference  is  thence  deduced  that 
the  '   furnish   an   all-sufficient   Bystem   of 

Psalmody  for  the   church   in  all  future  ages.     But  here 
in  the  pn  I  toe  narrow  to  support  the  conclu- 

sion.    On  the  supposition  that  these  inspired  composi- 
tions were  to  be  preserved  for  the  spiritual  benefit  of  the 
church,  and  tr>  be  used  in  other  modes  besides  song,  how 
iral  and  r  that  they  should  be  grouped  to- 

r  and  hold  a  separate  place  among  the  varied  pro- 
bions  of  t!  Spirit?     This  was  precisely  what 

igent  mind  would  anticipate,  vis.  that  these 
should   he   embodied  in  a  single  book.      The 
-  d   why  a  very  few  are  found,  not  liter 
ally  in  other  parts  <>f  the  Bible,  was   that 
this  .  for  the  integrity  and  completeness 

rical  narrative,  as  in  2  Chronicles,  chapter  22, 
compared   with    Psalm   lx  —  though   in    this   and  other 

*  Pro««lv  on  P«.ihno«lv,  p.  91. 

t  Dud-J'i  Reply,  : 


96  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

cases  there  are  very  numerous  points  of  difference.  How 
would  any  intelligent  uninspired  editor  act  under  similar 
circumstances  ?  If  called  to  arrange  and  publish  the 
Works  of  a  deceased  friend,  would  not  this  grouping  to- 
gether of  the  different  species  of  composition  be  a  first  dic- 
tate of  common  sense  ?  It  would  be  utterly  absurd  if  such 
editor,  in  issuing  the  works  of  Cowper,  for  example, 
should  throw  together  in  promiscuous  mass  his  fugitive 
poems  and  his  familiar  letters  ! 

Again — If,  as  these  brethren  maintain,  the  songs  of 
the  church  are  to  be  restricted  to  one  small  portion  of 
the  inspired  records,  and  if  in  disregarding  this  Divine 
limitation  so  far  as  to  sing  parts  of  Isaiah  or  the  New 
Testament,  we  only  expose  ourselves  to  the  Divine  dis- 
pleasure, instead  of  having  our  sacrifices  accepted — then 
certainly  we  are  entitled  to  know  very  accurately,  the  time, 
place,  personal  agency,  and  other  circumstances  attending 
this  "appointment"  of  an  exclusive  Psalmody  for  all 
coming  ages. 

We  are  not  inquiring  as  to  the  authority  of  the  "book 
of  Psalms"  as  an  integral  part  of  Holy  Writ,  given  "for 
our  learning."  This  is  just  as  plain  in  relation  to  that 
book  as  to  Isaiah  and  the  other  inspired  writings.  Nei- 
ther is  it  a  question  merely  of  arrangement  and  classifi- 
cation "  for  doctrine,  reproof,  instruction,"  &c.  There 
is  no  difficulty  in  such  points  as  these.  But  we  think 
we  are  entitled  to  particular  information  as  to  the  person 
by  whom  the  number  of  the  Psalms  was  fixed  at  precise- 
ly one  hundred  and  fifty,  neither  more  nor  less,  for  the 
express  purpose  of  Psalmody  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
other  songs,  inspired  and  uninspired.  How  and  when 
was  he  appointed  by  the  Great  Author  of  Inspiration  to 
establish  this  Divine  "  ordinance"  and  place  a  limit 
around  it  like  to  that  which  encircled  Mount  Sinai,  with 
the  terrible  inscription,  "  Pass  not  over  lest  tiiou  die  !" 
V\re  have  a  right  to  demand  of  these  brethren  a  clear 
"  thus  saith  the  Lord"  on  these  topics. 

That  we  are  entitled  to  demand  full  satisfaction  on 


WHBRfl   tfi   TIIK   MVrXK   WARRANT.  97 

to,   is  obvi  oing  of  tl 

brethren  them  lelves      V\  at  in  ar- 

gum<  at,  thej  jtomed  to  remind  as  in  the  n 

mn  manner,  of  "the  terrible  death  of  Nadab  and 
.a;"  and  that  "we  have  reason  to  apprehend  that 
the  disregard  of  Divine  authority  in  the  worohi] 
will  now  subject  the  guilty  t<>  the  displeasure  <<t*  heaven 
-     'y, "  &e.     And  they  further  allege  that  when 
happen  to  meet  with   Presbyterian  congregati 

d  to  remain  rilcnt}  lest  they  should  be 
chargeable  with  offering  strangi  fin  before  the  Lord."  * 
I  citing  the  Jewish  law  in  regard  to  bloody  sacrifices, 
they  point  us  to  the  certain  destruction  which  awaited  the 
sumptuous  worshiper  who   should  dare  to  present  to 
the  Lord  "the  flesh  of  the  pig"  instead  of  that  of  "the 
kid/'  "}*     But  as   if   all   this   were   not   enough,   we   are 
charged  with  taking  ''impious  license"  with  the  hook  of 
uid  the  whole  is  enforced  by  the  awful  maledic- 
tion :   "  Add  thou  not  unto  his  words,  lest  he  reprove  thee 
and  thou  be  found  a  liar."  J 

But  if  all  this  be  intended  for  anything  more   than 
rhetorical  flourish,  it  must  be  obvious  that  we  are  entitled 
to  require   "the  pattern  showed  in  the  mount."     The 
ri   minute  and  express  directions  were  divinely  given 
I     Moses  and  Aaron  in  relation  to  the  Levitical  offerings 
and  in  the  erection  of  the  altar  of  sacrifices  nothing  could 
be  more  explicit  than  that  it  was  to  be  made  "of  earth," 
•,"  and  that  "no  tool  was  t<>  be  lifted 
up  upon  it."      Exodus  20  :  24,  25.      If  these   brethren 
really  believe  that   Presbyterians  are  exposed  to  such 
judgments  as  those  of  Nadab  and  Abihu — if  the  crime 
flagrant  and  the  penalty  so  certain,  as  they  pretend, 
let  th.  in  produce  the  Divine  "pattern/1    We  demand  the 
exj  r  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  at  least  fair  in- 

ferential pro.  t  the  fearful  limit  around  the  book 

*  Fr  Imody,  pp,  0,  10. 

}ily  on  Psalo 
.  114. 


98  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

of  Psalms.  But  if  no  such  directions  are  to  be  found, 
then  we  would  warn  these  brethren  of  the  folly  and  crim- 
inality of  attempting  to  call  "  down  fire  from  heaven  " 
upon  all  who  "do  not  follow  with  them." 

It  is  no  sufficient  answer  to  the  foregoing  reasoning,  to 
allege  that  the  canon  of  Scripture  was  arranged  by  Ezra, 
and  the  Psalms  were  placed  in  their  present  position  by 
an  inspired  hand.  That  is  not  the  point.  The  canon 
would  have  been  equally  authoritative  and  complete,  if 
there  had  been  no  "book  of  Psalms,"  i.  e.,  if  these  sa- 
cred songs  had  been  inserted  in  the  lives  of  David  and 
the  other  penmen  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  question  is, 
"among  all  the  variety  of  devotional  poetry  in  the  Bible, 
what  Divine  oracle  has  selected  and  fixed  by  a  perpetual 
decree,  or  at  least  by  fair  inference,  an  inspired  psalter 
of  one  hundred  and  fifty  songs  as  the  only  and  all-suffi- 
cient volume  of  praise  to  all  ages  ?  "  If  no  answer  can  be 
given  to  this  inquiry,  then  "where  there  is  no  law,  there 
is  no  transgression ;"  and  we  treat  with  derision  pages 
of  vapid  denunciation  as  the  empty  flourish  of  feeble 
rhetoric.  And  we  are  the  rather  encouraged  to  this,  be- 
cause the  self-same  logic  which  hurls  upon  our  heads  the 
penalties  of  the  Jewish  theocracy,  would  lead  to  the 
stoning  of  a  man  to  death  for  "gathering  sticks  on  the 
Sabbath."     Numbers  15  :  32. 

But  it  is  said  with  much  confidence,  that  "there  is  no 
book  of  Psalms  in  the  New  Testament.  Nor  is  there  any 
promise  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  assist  any 
man  in  preparing  one."  *  How  is  this  to  be  accounted 
for?  "We  reply  —  no  inspired  booh  of  Psalms  for  the 
new  dispensation-  was  necessary.  The  theory  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  is  complete  and  satisfactory  without 
any  New  Testament  volume  of  praise.  We  find  a  rich  and 
varied  supply  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New; 
in  the  former,  especially  in  the  book  of  Psalms — in  the 
latter,  not  only  all  the  noble  songs  and  hymns  sung  by 
angels  at  the  birth  of  Christ,  &c.,  by  the  glorified  church 
*  Preesly  on  Psalmody,  p.  85. 


WHEBB   IS   THE   MVIXK   WARRANT.  09 

and  by  inspired  men,  but  besides,  hundreds  of  the  m 

I  and  delightful  and  edifying 
and  the  epistles,  already  prepared  to  our  hand.*     All 
that  is  necessary  is  to  versify,  for  example,  such  adn 
bl  ■  |  -  that  of  "the  prodigal  sou,"  or  any  simi- 

lar |  ad  we  have  a  most  precious  and  affecting 

hymn  of  praise.     And  so  with  the  deeply  Impn  ssi 

:  the  crucifixion:  what  heart  can  fail  to  relish, 
what  tongue  tenderly  to  respond  to  the  narrative  of  the 
thief  expiring  on  the  cross,  and  turning  his  dying  i 
upon  the  Saviour — "Lord,  remember  me."  And  then 
the  Bweet  answer  of  the  compassionate  Redeemer — "This 
day  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  Paradise. "  And  if  we  open 
the  apostolic  epistles,  everywhere  the  holy  raptures  of  the 
writers  break  forth  in  beautiful  ascriptions  of  praise  : 
"Unto  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible,  the  only 
honor  and  glory  forever  and  ever,  amen/1 
Or  take  Paul's  Bublime  argument  for  the  resurrection,  in 
1  Corinthians  15  :  51—58 — "For  this  corruptible  must 
put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  put  on  immortality; 
*  *  *  then  Bhall  be  brought  to  pass  the  saying  that  is 
written.  Death  Bhall  be  .-wallowed  up  in  victory. 

0  death  where  is  thy  stinc;  ? 
0  grave  where  ia  thy  vi 

The   sting  of  death   is  Bin,   and    the   strength    of  sin  is 

law.     But  thanks  be  to  God  who  giveth  us  the  vio- 

through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."     These  are  noble 

.  'salmody  of  th<  at.    They 

are  made  to  our  hand,  and  we  ask  no  her:,  r.     A  volume 

at  I  :;  of  Psalms  "  can 

I  from  this  magnificent  I .  ;'  Di- 

*  u  We  find  in  them     • 

I  . 

-••fully  looked  into  and  examined  with  anj 

••  •  much 

;;,  1 1  i*/" — 

. 


)  QO  LETTERS    OX    PSALMODY. 

vine  truth.  *  And  then  we  have,  besides,  all  that  is 
most  rich  and  grand  and  instructive  and  animating  in  the 
Psalms,  Isaiah  and  all  the  prophets.  Let  hundreds  of 
such  passages  as  those  we  have  cited,  be  paraphrased  and 
versified  with  even  the  large  license  of  many  of  the 
Psalms  by  Rouse,  and  we  will  have  a  volume  of  praise 
such  as  might  fire  the  souls  even  of  the  ransomed  in 
glory.  "No  book  of  Psalms  in  the  New  Testament!" 
We  have  what  is  far  better — we  have  all  that  David  and 
Asaph  and  Isaiah  and  the  others  wrote,  illuminated  by 
the  brighter  glories  of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness,  "  who 
hath  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the 
gospel."  We  have  all  that  the  seraphic  Paul,  and  the 
heavenly-minded  John,  and  the  golden-mouthed  Luke 
("the  beloved  physician"),  and  the  ardent  lion-hearted 
Peter  —  what  shall  I  say  !  —  we  have  the  very  words  of 
Him  who  was  goodness,  and  mercy,  and  virtue,  and  wis- 
dom, all  embodied  in  the  incomparable  person  of  the  Son 
of  God  !  Surely  the  church  would  be  hard  to  satisfy,  if 
she  could  ask  more  than  this  ! 

But  hark!  It  is  the  voice  of  the  objector — "Your 
New  Testament  hymns  are  a  serious  corruption  of  the 
worship  of  God  !  We  dare  not  sing  them,  lest  we  should 
offer  strange  fire  before  the  Lord ! "  Yet  this  is  the 
language  of  ministers  of  the  gospel,  who  profess  great 
respect,  yea,  profound  reverence,  for  the  words  of  inspira- 
tion !     Strange  !     0  prejudice  !     How  blind  art  thou  ! 

*  Many  beautifnl  specimens  may  be  seen  in  the  hymn  book  of  the 
United  Presbyterian  church  of  Scotland,  sixty-hve  of  which  are  by 
Dr.  Watts. 


THE   MORE    EXCELLENT   WAY.  101 


LETT  ER   IX. 

"A   I  WAY" — WHOL1  WORD  OF  GOD  OF  FSF  TO 

s 

BKIRl —  KM:  BORTH    BRITI8B    RK- 

!      PAAL- 
BO     HIS     \l    ISIRK    LT]     El     ki     A     PAR  kPHB  '  - 
AXWATfl  -  1     TRANSLATION  —  vwv     0*     Hlfl     PSALMS 

■  |     PB  w.vrs  — 
Efl  ,  STRRHHOLD  .\M>  HOPKIHI —  PfALRI 

-      .  .'.\  —  TR8TIMORT    Of    PROF.    PA1 

Mt   DEAR  Sir: — Having  in   previous  Letters  - 
the  principle  adopted  by  our  brethren  in  the  matter  of 
Psalmody,   and  given  numerous    illustrations   of    their 
practice  under  it,  we  are  now  prepare!  to  exhibit,  some- 
what at  large,  4*  a  more  excellent  way." 

R      ivii  the  whole  word  of  I 

use  *  is"  in  his  praise,  no  less  than  "in  pra  . 

and  the  other  parts   of  worship,  we  cannot  adept  the 
theory  which  limits  the  church  under  her  present  dis] 

a    small,   though   very  precious  collection    of 

Psalms  originally  given  to  the  Jews  for  a  part  of  their 

temple  Bervice.     Still  less  can  we  accept  an  explanatory 

phrase  of  those  Psalms  as  "the  Inch 

givi  :i/'  ••  the  verital  of  inspiration  in  a 

<l  translation/1     To  do  this  would  be  to 

plainest  evidence  of  our  senses,  to  call  bl 

ad   white   black,    "to  put  bitter  t 

■v."      What,  then,  have  we  to  Bhow  a>  "  the 
mor  i\  way  ?  " 

If  we  were  compel]  pt  the  judgment  of  I 

will  copy,  for  the  amusement  of  tl  w  of  the 

eur:  ts  by  which  they  attempt  to  disparage  the 

1 '  >ur  branch  of  the  church.     "  Loose  p 

phrases,"  "modern  hymn-."  "pi  _ . ish 

poet/'  "hymn  human  invention,"  ''entire  re- 

9* 


102  LETTERS    OX   PSALMODY. 

jection,  and  impious  rejection  of  the  Psalms  which  God 
has  given  to  his  church  to  be  sung/'  "  mere  effusions  of 
men,"  "  man-made  Psalm  book/'  "  impious  license  taken 
with  the  book  of  Psalms,"  "  preference  of  a  human  to  a 
Divine  book  of  Psalms/'  "  exclusion  of  Scripture  songs/' 
"Psalm  book  prepared  by  man/'  "  songs  of  human  com- 
posure/' "Watts'  whymes,"  " confusion  of  Babel/'  &c. 
These  specimens  are  selected  from  the  most  respectable 
authors  on  that  side  of  the  question. 

But  we  are  not  to  be  silenced  by  declamation.  Rail- 
ing convinces  nobody.  We  propose  the  only  safe  test  in 
such  cases,  viz.  an  appeal  to  the  record  and  to  facts. 

I.  It  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  our  Supreme  Judicatory 
have,  by  a  standing  rule,  often  repeated  but  never  repealed, 
authorized  the  use  of  Rouse's  versification  of  the  Psalms 
Thus,  in  1787,  after  "  allowing  the  use  of  Watts  as  re- 
vised by  Barlow,"  they  say,  "  we  are  at  the  same  time 
FAR  FROM  disapproving  of  Rouse7 s  version,  commonly 
called  '  the  old  Psalms/  in  those  who  are  in  the  use  of 
them  and  choose  to  continue  •  *  *  *  and  do  highly  disap- 
prove of  severe  and  unchristian  censures  being  passed 
upon  either  of  said  systems  of  Psalmody." 

Now  as  in  the  judgment  of  these  brethren,  "  Rouse's 
paraphrase"  is  "  the  songs  of  inspiration,"  this  action  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Presbyterian  church  certainly 
does  not  look  like  "  an  impious  rejection  of  the  Psalms  !" 
"  We  are  far  from  disapproving  of  Rouse  s  version." 

The  men  who  constituted  the  first  Presbytery  of  our 
church  (1705)  were  emigrants  from  Scotland  and  Ireland. 
They  brought  their  Psalmody  with  them,  and  being  en- 
deared to  them  by  recollections  of  home  and  similar  asso- 
ciations, they  were  not  likely  to  make  any  hasty  changes 
in  that  department  of  worship.  But  the  mother  churches 
of  Scotland  had  never  adopted  the  modern  exclusive  prin- 
ciple  which  is  so  zealously  defended  in  this  country.* 

•  This  appears  from  several  considerations  : 

1.  From  the  earliest  specimens  Bung  by  the  Scottish  martyrs  and 
reformers,  and  which  were  anything  but  "literal  translations"  of  the 
Psalms. 


LLBNT   W'V.  103 

libera]  and  broad 
foanding  and  r  *  riaD   church. 

on   their 
in  the     :  lina- 
ry  revolutioo 

highly  ;  rovement  in 

aid  naturally  call  to  mind  tl, 

ssembly  in  1»U7  and  in  1701—7, 

i  by  Zachary 

I  by  the 

latter  "having  fed  by   that    Assembly 

',7  in  private  families,  in  order  toprq 

And  these  early 
Pr  -  -   well   knew  that   in  1747  the  Ajssocial 

land  had  recommended 
I    Ralph    Erskine    u  I  i   versify   the  o\ 
which  labor  he  accomplished,  quoting 
in  hie  "  |  volume  the  action  of  the  church 

S  ripturt 

f  David  are,  and  for  the 

the  church  of  Scotland, 

.  and  that  f  the 

;  particularly  by  an 

th,  1«U7." 

Sternbold  and  Hopkins')  wa>  a 
sxplanationa, 

.man  oomp 

r   1   constantly 
-   paraphras 

:,.  thai  by  t;. 
*  the  printed 

ami  i 


104  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

Nor  were  these  early  Presbyterians  ignorant  that  the 
same  Ralph  Erskine  had  regarded  his  labors  upon  "  the 
other  Scripture  songs,"  as  an  important  addition  to  the 
Psalmody  of  the  Associate  church.     Thus  he  remarks  : 

"  As  the  poems  and  songs  here  written,  are  in  the  form 
of  what  is  called  rhyme  and  common  metre,  so  the  reason 
thereof  is,  to  answer  the  design  proposed  to  me,  of  making 
the  Scripture  songs  adapted  to  the  common  tunes,  so  as 
it  may  be  practicable  to  sing  them  as  ice  do  the  Psalms  of 
David." 

Again,  in  his  preface  to  the  "  Song  of  Solomon,"  he 
says,  after  quoting  Ephesians  18  :  19,  and  Colossians  3  : 
16 — "  That  you  may  be  the  more  able  to  sing  it  ('the 
song')  over  with  understanding,  I  have  endeavored  to  lay 
open  its  mysteries,"  &c. 

Again,  he  says  he  put  his  verse  in  u  common  metre," 
that  "in  case  any  should  see. fit  to  make  some  of  these 
lines  a  part  of  their  spiritual  and  devout  recreation  in 
secret,  they  might,  if  they  please,  sing  them  over  in  any 
of  the  tunes  to  which  they  are  accustomed  in  our  Scottish 
church."  This  refers  to  secret  worship — but  the  "  Testi- 
mony" of  our  brethren  includes  (t  worship  both  public 
and  private." 

With  such  antecedents  and  authorities  as  these,  it  was 
to  be  expected  that  the  Presbyterian  church  in  this  coun- 
try should  early  take  decided  action  for  the  improvement 
of  her  Psalmody.  Accordingly,  under  the  leadership  of 
Dr.  Witherspoon,  (clarum  et  venerabile  nomen,')  Dr. 
Hodgers,  and  men  of  like  spirit,  the  act  of  our  Supreme 
Judicatory  quoted  above,  was  passed,  so  far  as  appears 
on  the  records,  without  a  dissenting  voice. 

This  action  of  our  highest  church  court  is  viewed  by 
the  brethren  we  oppose,  as  a  " preference  of  a  human 
to  a  Divine  book  of  Psalms" — "an  impious  license," 
calling  for  Divine  rebuke.  But  the  facts  are  all  against 
them.  In  the  year  1705,  our  church  consisted  of  seven 
ministers,  and  two  or  three  years  later  they  reported  ten 
small  congregations,  numbering  probably  less  than  one 


Tin:    MORE    EXCELLENT   WAV.  105 

thousand  communicants.  We  pass  op  three-quarters  of 
ntury,  during  all  which  term  B  rase's  versification  is, 
with  almost  no  exception,  exclusively  the  Psalmody  of 
ihuroh.  She  now  ( 17x7  |  reports  thirteen  Ptesbyte- 
and  one  hundred  and  sixty-three  ministers,  with  pro- 
v  two  hundred  c  >n  ;  rease  has  I 

and  she  has  to  triumph  iu  her  God  and 

King.  But  we  pass  over  another  three-fourths  of  a  cen- 
tury, during  all  which  time  the  church  lies  under  the 
guilt  of  "an  impious  rejection  of  God's  Psalm  book." 
How  stands  the  Bame  church  n  >w,  1858?     To  the  i 

•  raise  of  h  r  '1  Saviour  be  it  Bpoken — she 

now  numbers  one  hundred  and  fifty-nine  Presbyto  ri 
two  thousand  four  hundred  and  sixty-eight  mini.-: 
three  thousand  three  hundred  and  twenty-four  churches, 
and  more  than  two  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  church 
members — while  during  the  single  year  which  terminated 
last  May,  she  received  to  her  communion  from  the  world, 
twenty  thousand  Beven  hundred  and  ninety-two  hopeful 
converts.    A*  the  same  time,  in  all  that  constitutes  puri- 

anity,  Christian  activity  and  usefulness,  she  is  d 
whit  behind  the  very  chief  of  the  embattled  hosts  of  Q 

t.  "her  enemies  themselves  being  judges."     We  say 
it  in  no  spirit  of  boasting,  but  we  trust  with  profound  hu- 
mility  and  dependence  on   Divine    grace.     Facts    like 
i  not  show  a  church  of  her   Almighty 

King  •     At  the  same  rate  of  increase,  it  will  require 
than  ars  to  swell  her  membership  by  an  i 

■  than  the  sum  total  of  the  I 
A  —  liate  and  Associate  Reformed  churches,  new  united 
in  on 

le  at  this  late  day,  to  ascertain  minutely 
the  which    induced   Dr.   Witherspoon,  and  the 

:'  our  church,  to  seek  an  iin- 

pp>.  In   the   Act  cited  above  there  i>  not, 

the  remotest  hint  of  any  hostility  to  the  precious  "book 
of  1'  antiquated  versification 

they  say  they  - pprotring."      They  did 


106  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

not  allege  that  "an  uncouth  version  (Rouse's)  had  put 
David's  Psalms  out  of  the  church,  aud  it  would  he'ep 
them  out."  *  We  do  not  read  that  they  urged  the  duty 
and  necessity  of.  an  improved  version,  as  Dr.  Cooper  does, 
because  "  no  man  of  any  taste  and  scholarship  can  fail  to  feel 
so."  Nor  yet  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Beveridge — "It  must 
require  a  strong  love  for  the  inspired  Psalms  to  overcome 
the  distaste  which  would  otherwise  be  felt  to  the  language 
in  which  they  are  sometimes  clothed,  especially  by  young 
persons  and  strangers." 

These  were  doubtless  regarded  by  such  men  as  Wither- 
spoon  and  Rodgers  as  matters  of  considerable  interest — 
but  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  they  felt  as  their  fore- 
fathers did,  and  especially  such  men  as  the  judicious 
editor  of  Ralph  Erskine's  works,  who  penned  the  follow- 
ing : 

"  Though  the  Psalms  of  David  are  truly  excellent  and 
sublime,  containing  suitable  matter  for  praise  and  adora- 
tion, &c,  yet  there  are  many  passages  in  them  peculiarly 
adapted  to  the  old  dispensation  of  earned  rites  and  cere- 
monies, and  on  that  account,  cannot  be  supposed  to  be  so 
clear  and  full  of  the  grace  and  spirit  of  the  gospel.  The 
consideration  hereof  hath  induced  many  devout  and 
piously  disposed  persons,  ardently  and  sincerely  to  wish 
that  our  Psalmody  tcere  enlarged,  not  only  by  adding 
some  other  Scripture  songs  out  of  the  Old  Testament, 
but  particularly  by  selecting  a  number  from  the  New." 

It  is  on  such  broad  and  liberal  principles  as  these 
that  our  church  has  always  acted.  They  could  adopt,  in 
part  at  least,  the  language  of  Dr.  John  Owen,  whose  name 
is  a  tower  of  strength  in  theology.  He  says  :  "  There 
ivas  a  promise  of  eternal  life  given  to  the  saints  under  the 
Old  Testament :  but  whereas  they  were  obliged  to  a  wor- 
ship that  was  carnal  and  outwardly  pompous,  they  never 
had  clear  and  distinct  apprehensions  of  the  future  state 
of  glory  :  for  life  and  immortality  were  brought  to  light 
by  the  gospel." 

*  Roy.  W.  Davidson,  of  the  United  Presbyterian  church. 


Till:   MOKE    EXCELLENT   WAY.  107 

Believing  that  there  are  brighter  displays  of  the  "ex- 
cellent w  than  in  the  <>M  Testament, 
they  felt  it  to  be  a  duty  to  use  the  clearer  light,  no  leas 
In  the  ordinance  of  prai» ,  than  in  the  other  «•>.  raises 
worship.  We  art'  far  from  "an  impious  setting  aside  of  the 
Psalms  which  God  has  given,  and  using  in  their  stead 
lion*  of  men"  *  as  is  rashly  affirmed  to 
rejudice. 
1 1.   We  are  now  prepared  to  examine  the  improvenu  nt$ 
which  our  church  has  authorised \  and  this  is  the  more 
ury,  as  it  is  especially  upon  these  that  onr  brethren 
direct   the   chief   battery   of   their    denunciations.     The 
main  instrument  in  preparing  "  the  Psalms  and  Hymns" 
as  we  now  use  them,  was  the  celebrated  Dr.  Isaac  Watts. t 
A  few  years  subsequent  to  the  organization  of  the  first 
Presbytery  of  our  church  (1705),  Dr.  W.  published  his 
system    of    Psalmody,  perhaps   1708.     Of  the    position 
which   the  "  Psalms   and   Hymns"  versified   by  Dr.  W. 
maintain  in   the   Free  church  of  Scotland  and  the  sister 
inations,  we  cannot  give  a  better  idea  than  in  the 
led  extracts  from  the  "North  British  Review,"! 
which  was  founded  by  Chalmers,  and  is  sustained  by  the 
leading  men  of  the  Free  church  :   u  A  century  and  a  half 
ys  the  Review,  "  since  the  publication 
of  Dr.  Watts'  Psalms  and  Hymns;  yet  nothing  has  ap- 
I  to  dim  their  lustre ;  as  yet  nothing  threatens  to 
■de  them.      With  their  doctrinal  fullness,  their  sa- 
cred fervor,  their  lyric  grandeur,  they  stand  alone,  over- 
topping    all    their    fellows."       "  To    elevate    to   poetic 
altitude-  every  truth  in  Christian  experience  and  revealed 
i,  need-  the  strength  and  sweep  of  an  eagle's  win<_r ; 
and  this  is  what  Isaac  Watts  has  done.     He  has  taken 
ry  topic  which  exerci&  -  the  understanding  and 
\   the  believer,  and  has  not  only  given  it  a  de- 
..  I>r.  K.tt.  editor  of  the  Preacher.    That  <>ur  church  feeli  no 
in  of  Room,  La  obrioae,  in  that  die  has  Lately  added 
ED  it  to  her  Paalmodjj  as  must  commonly  used. 

;  1'  i  Angnftg  I 


108  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

votional  aspect,  but  has  wedded  it  to  immortal  numbers ; 
and,  whilst  there  is  little  to  which  he  has  not  shown 
himself  equal,  there  is  nothing  which  he  has  done  for 
mere  effect.  They  are  naturalized  through  all  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  world,  and,  next  to  Scripture  itself,  are  the  great 
vehicle  of  pious  thought  and  feeling."  Again,  says  the 
same  high  authority  :  "  A  climbing  boy  was  once  heard 
singing  in  a  chimney, 

'The  sorrows  of  the  mind 

Bo  banished  from  this  place. 
Religion  never  was  designed 
To  make  our  pleasures  less/ 

And,  like  King  David's  own  Psalter,  the  same  strains 
which  cheered  the  poor  sweep  in  the  chimney,  and  melted 
to  tears  the  Northamptonshire  peasants,  have  roused  the 
devotion  or  uttered  the  rapture  of  ten  thousand  thousand 
worshipers ;  and  there  is  many  a  reader  who,  in  his  ex- 
perience, can  imagine  nothing  more  akin  to  celestial  en- 
joyment, than  the  sensations  which  he  shared  in  singing, 
when  the  heart  of  some  solemn  assembly  was  uplifted  as 
one  man,  'Come,  let  us  join  our  cheerful  song/  or, 
'  Jesus  shall  reign  where'er  the  sun/  " 

The  contrast  between  this  high  eulogy  from  the  pen  of 
one  of  the  gifted  sons  of  the  "Free  church  of  Scotland/' 
and  the  abusive  epithets  near  the  beginning  of  this 
Letter,  is  curious  enough.  But  our  safest  course  is,  "  to 
search  the  record/'  as  the  lawyers  say,  and  thus  ascertain 
for  ourselves  where  the  truth  lies. 

III.  The  judgment  formed  by  Dr.  Watts,  in  regard  to 
his  poetical  labors,  may  be  gathered  from  his  own  words. 
He  frequently  describes  his  versification  as  a  "  para- 
phrase." Thus  :  "  Whensoever  there  shall  appear  any 
paraphrase  of  the  book  of  Psalms  that  retains  more  of 
the  savor  of  David's  piety,  and  discovers  more  of  the 
style  and  spirit  of  the  gospel,  *  *  *  let  this  attempt 
of  mine  be  buried  in  silence."  Whether  he  is  more  or 
less  paraphrastic  than  Rouse,  is  of  course  another  ques- 
tion, which  is  not  now  under  discussion. 


THK   MORS    BXCILLBHI   WIT.  10P 

in,  Dr.  W.  employs  the  general  title,  "The  Psalms 
of  David,  imitated  in  the  language  of  the  New  Tcstamt  at, 
and  applied  to  the  Christian  state  and  worship/1  Bis 
meaning  is  indicated  as  follows:  ''Where  the  Psalmist 

sacrificing  goats  or  bullocks,  L  rather ch 

mention  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  the  Lamb  af  (iod.    When 

he  attends  the  ark  with  shouting  into  Zion,  I  sing  the 

sion  of  my  Saviour.     *     *     *     Why  should  I  now 

«    my  God  and  Saviour  in  a  song  with  burnt  sacri- 

fatlings,  and  with  the  incense  of  rams,    *     *     * 

why  should  I  hind  my  sacrifices  with  cords  to  the  horns 

of  the  altar  f*  X  \ 

in  :  In  a  letter*  dated  March  17th,  1718,  and  ad- 
I  to  the  eminently  pious  Dr.  Cotton  Mather,  of 
New  England,  and  in  which  he  submitted  some  speci- 
mens of  his  labors  in  Psalmody,  Dr.  Watts  writes  as  fol- 
lows :  u  It  is  not  a  translation  of  David  I  pretend,  but 
an  imitation  of  him  so  nearly  in  Christian  (or  gospel 
hymns  that  the  Jewish  Psalmist  may  plainly  appear }  yet 
leave  Judaism  behind.'1 

From  this  extract  two  things  are  plain  : 

1.  Dr.  W.  did  not  design  to  exclude  David  from  the 
Psalmody  of  the  church  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  says  he 
aimed  to  make  him  "plainly  appear"  yet  without  "Ju- 
daism." 

-.  In  the  phrase  "  Christian  hymns,"  he  obviously 
intended  snob  a  use  of  the  terms  as  when  we  speak  of 
"the  Christian  (or  gospel)  dispensation,"  in  opposition 
to  the  "Jewish  economy."  This  also  shows  what  he 
-  when  he  sometimes  uses  the  objectionable  phraseol- 
ogy, u teach  David  to  speak  like  a  Christian,  or  the  com- 
mon sense  or  experience)  of  a  Christian."  lie  evident- 
ly  means   the   opposite   of  Jm-ish  ezperien 

Dg   to   translator-   of  the  Psalms,  he  says:    u 

taught  the  Hebrew  Psalmist  to  speak  EngUtk/'    But  how 

unfair  would  it  be  to  represent  Dr.  W.  as  teaching  that 
Ike   11  ly  Spirit,  author  of  the  Psalms,  did  not 

*  Published  in  th 

lb 


110  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

understand  the  English  language!  Such  a  misrepresen- 
tation would  be  scouted  by  every  candid  and  honorable 
mind,  and  must  recoil  upon  its  authors.  Yet  very  much 
such  usage  has  Dr.  W.  received  from  certain  writers  ! 
u  A\rhat  need  is  there,"  he  exclaims,  "that  I  should  wrap 
up  the  shining  honors  of  my  Redeemer  in  the  dark  and 
shadowy  language  of  a  religion  which  is  now  forever 
abolished ;  especially  since  Christians  are  so  vehemently 
warned  by  Paul  "against  a  Judaizing  spirit?  "  His  ob- 
ject was,  as  he  himself  affirms,  "to  change  the  dark  ex- 
pressions, and  the  Levitical  ceremonies  and  Hebrew  forms, 
into  the  worship  of  the  gospel ;"  *  *  *  and  he  adds, 
"thus  should  I  rejoice  to  see  a  good  part  of  the  book 
of  Psalms  fitted  for  the  use  of  the  churches  and  David 
converted  into  a  Christian."  We  do  not  defend  the  use 
of  such  phraseology,  because  it  is  very  liable  to  be  mis- 
understood ;  but  when  interpreted  agreeably  to  the  com- 
monest rules  of  candor,  it  conveys  no  objectionable  sense 
to  any  intelligent  mind.  Indeed,  Dr.  W.  in  these  sen- 
tences, proposes  to  do  with  David  precisely  what  every 
minister  does,  when  from  the  pulpit  he  explains  to  the 
people  these  typical  expressions,  and  teaches  them  to 
sing  them  as  interpreted  by  the  light  of  the  gospel !  If 
such  a  minister  explains  the  Psalms  correctly,  he  will,  in 
most  such  cases,  put  into  the  hearts  of  his  people  (what- 
ever may  be  in  their  lips,)  just  the  admirable  sense  and 
import  of  these  Jewish  ceremonies  as  they  are  happily 
explained  and  versified  by  Dr.  Watts  I  It  is  thus  these 
Associate  and  Associate  Reformed  ministers  "convert 
David  into  a  Christian  !"  The  heinous  crime  in  the  one 
case,  is  no  less  shocking  than  in  the  other;  the  chief  dif- 
ference being  this  —  the  one  (Dr.  Watts)  sins  in  good 
poetry ;  the  other  (the  preacher)  sins  in  plain  prose  ! 
And  in  singing  such  hymns,  the  devout  Christian  does 
what  is  enjoined  in  the  Directory  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed church  —  "  in  singing  those  parts  of  them  [the 
Psalms]  which  are  expressed  in  the  ceremonial  style,  or 
describe  the  circumstances  of  the  writer s}  or  of  the  church 


THE    MOM    EXCELLENT    WAY.  Ill 

ij  we  tkould  have  our  eye  upon  the  gem  tai 
ciplet  whioh  are  implied  in  them,  and  which  arc  op- 

plicabb    to  individuals  or  to  the  church  in  every  ag 

r.    k  Bj  Ch,  S,  - 

IV.    We  are  DOW  prepared  to  take  another  step  in   the 
:i.      Every  one   familiar   with   his    Bible,  k:. 
that    of   the   compositions   of    "the  sweet    Psalmist 
Israi 1,"  many  have  nothing  of  "Judaism"  about  them. 
They  are  beautiful  expressions  of  that  heaven-born  pi 
which  is  the  same  at  all  times  and  everywhere,  wh<  I 

r  Gentiles,    How  does  Dr.  Watts  deal  with 

this  class  of   Psalms? 

We  reply,  he  very  generally  gives  correct  versions  of 
sueh  Psalms  ;  for  example,  the  iirst,  the  twenty-third,  the 
hundredth,  ftc      In  this  large  and  very  precious  class  of 
lie  generally  gives  quite  as  correct  a  n  I 
,  and  incomparably  superior  in  all  that  consti- 
tutes poetry.     This  assertion  may  possibly  surprise  some 
i  ho  have  been  taught  to  regard  our  Psalmody, 
in  the  words  of  Rev.  Dr.  Kerr,  of  the  "Preacher/1 

■re  productions  of  men."     But  we  again  appeal 
bo  the  record.     Here  is  Dr.  Watts'  own  account  of  the 
matt»  r :  In  speaking  of  u  the  true  method  "  ^t'  preparing 
the    Psalms   fur    New    Testament    worship,    1. 
11  Psalms   that  are  purely  doctrinal  or  merely  historical, 
are  subjects  for  our  meditation,  and  may  be  translated 
for  our  present  use  with  no  variation,  if  it  were  possible; 
and  in  general,  all  THOSE  s<>\<;s  of  Scripture  which  the 
:  following  ages  may  <i>>am>  for  tht  ir  ova  ;  such 
1-t,  the  8th,  the  19th,  and  wuamy  o&en."     We 
had  intended  to  give  a  Beries  of  illustrations  of  this  prin- 
ciple, copied  from  the  Psalmody  ^i  our  church — but  fi  r 
ie,  we*  confine  ourselves  to  one  specimen,  the 
100th  Psalm,  placing  the  prose  of  our  Bibles  in  parallel 
column  with    the  versification  of  Dr.  Watts,  as  follof 

i  joyful  noise  unto  thi  1  tho  earth,  r<j..ict> 

I  re  the    Lord,   youi 

king. 


112  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

oerve  the  Lord  with  gladness.      Serve  him  with  cheerful  heart  and 

voice, 
Come  before  his  presence  with     With  all  your  tongues  his  glory  sing, 
singing. 

Know  ye  that  the  Lord  he  is  The  Lord  is  God ;  'tis  he  alone 

Grod:  it  is  he  that  made  us,  and  Doth  life  and  health  and  being  give, 

not  we    ourselves;     we   are   his  We  are  his  work,  and  not  our  own, 

people,  and  the  sheep  of  his  pas-  The  sheep  that  on  his  pasture  live, 
ture. 

Enter    into    his     gates     with     Enter  his  gates  with  songs  of  joy;  ,. 
thanksgiving,     into     his     courts     With  praises  to  his  courts  repair, 
with  praise  ;  be  thankful  to  him     And  make  it  your  divine  employ 
and  bless  his  name.  To   pay  your   thanks   and  honors 

there. 

For  the  Lord  is  good ;  his  mer-  The  Lord  is  good,  the  Lord  is  kind  ; 
cy  is  from  everlasting:  and  his  Great  is  his  grace,  his  mercy  sure, 
truth  endureth  to  all  generations.     And  the  whole  race  of  men  shall  find 

His  truth  from  age  to  age  endure. 

The  right  column,  it  will  be  seen,  contains  a  very  fair 
version  of  a  precious  inspired  song  of  praise.  It  is  much 
nearer  a  "  correct  and  faithful  version  "  than  two-thirds 
of  Rouse's  paraphrases  ;  and  on  the  principles  of  our 
brethren,  is  therefore  more  strictly  and  truly  "  an  in- 
spired Psalm."  Yet  in  addition  to  this  large  class  of 
purely  devotional  songs,  Dr.  W.  says,  "he  designed  to 
make  no  variation  in  the  purely  doctrinal  and  histor- 
ical Psalms."  All  these,  therefore,  if  Dr.  W.  executed 
his  purpose,  are  "the  songs  which  God  has  given,"  not 
"  tho  mere  effusions  of  men,"  not  "  hymns  of  mere  hu- 
man invention,"  as  our  brethren  rashly  assert ! 

V.  It  was  the  express  design  of  Dr.  W.  "wherever  he 
found  the  person  and  offices  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in 
prophecy,  to  translate  them  in  a  way  of  history }"  and  he 
adds,  "  such  evangelical  truths  should  be  stript  of  their 
veil  of  darkness,"  &c.  When,  for  example,  he  read  in 
Psalm  40  :  6,  "  Mine  ears  hast  thou  opened," — he  added 
with  the  apostle,  "  A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me,"  &c. 
But  such  a  use  of  New  Testament  light  is  quite  offensive 
to  our  brethren,  savoring  of  "  impious  license  with  the 
Psalms,"  "  attempting  to  write  better  than  David,"  &c. 
But  it  is  remarkable  that  in  her  earliest,  her   martyr 


THE    MORE    EXCELLENT    WAY.  11^> 

Pbahnody,  the  ohurch  of  Scotland  employed  this  very 
principlo,  i.  e.,  she  accommodated  the  Psalms  to  New 
Testament  forms.  Open  the  versification  by  Sternhold 
and  Hopkins,  which  was  used  by  that  honored  church  for 
an  hundred  years  before  Rouse  was  thought  of.  Let  us 
look  at  a  few  specimens  of  this  " gospel  torn/1  How  is 
•this  matter  managed  in  the  second  Psalm?  Omitting 
Borne  examples  quoted  in  another  Letter,  pass  to  v 
12th  :  u  When  his  wrath  is  kindled  but  a  little,  blessed 
are  all  they  that  put  their  trust  in  him." 

STKKXHOLD.  DR.  WATTS. 

hil  wrath  never  so  small  If  once  his  wrath  arise, 

Shall  kindle  in  his  kreaH:  Ys  perish  on  the  place; 

0  then  all  they  that  trust  in  Christ  Then  blessed  la  the  soul  that  flies 

Bhall  rmppj  be  and  blest.  For  refuge  to  his  grace. 

Did  the  Church  of  Scotland  imagine  that  such  a  use 
of  the  Psalms  was  ^impious  J"  But  take  another  exam- 
ple :  u  The  kings  of  the  earth  set  themselves,  and  the 
rulers  take  counsel  together  against  the  Lord,  and  against 
hi.-  anointed." 

STERNHOLD.  DR.  WATTS. 

The  kings  and  rulers  of  the  earth        Why  did  the  Gentiles  n 
Conspire  and  all  <u-e  bent  And  Jews  frith  one  aeoordj 

1   and    Christ  his     Bend  all   their  counsels  to  destroy 
The  anointed  of  the  Lord. 
I  he  amongst  us  feat.* 

This  is  another  illustration  of  what  Pr.  Watts  means 
by  "converting  David  into  a  Christian/1  Sternhold 
and  the  ehnrch  of  Scotland  practiced  the  same  Bort  of 
'onl  Take  a  further  illustration  from  David's 
beautiful  penitential  Psalm,  the  51st,  v.  7:  u  Purge  me 
with  hyssop, and  I  Bhall  be  clean:  wash  me,  and  1  shall 

be  whiter  than  the  BQOW." 

*  ••  wi:  >r«  the  origins]  runa  In  the  f"rm  of  propb*ej  eonoernlng  Christ  and 
his  nalw  U  tui  n  to  the  Bense."— Dr. 

10* 


114 


LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 


STERNHOLD.  DR.  WATTS. 

If  thou  with  hyssop  purge  this  blot     0  wash  my  soul  from  every  sin, 
I  shall  be  cleaner  than  the  glasse,      And   make  my  guilty  conscience 
And  if  thou  wash  away  my  spot,  clean. 

The  snow  in  whiteness  I  shall  passe.    No   bleeding   bird,   nor  bleeding 

beast, 
Nor  hyssop  branch,  nor  sprinkling 

priest, 
Nor  running  brook,  nor  flood,  nor 

sea, 
Can  wash  the  dismal  stain  away. 

Again:  observe  the  " gospel  turn"  in  this:  Psalm 
87  :  5  :  "  And  of  Zion  it  shall  be  said,  This  and  that  man 
was  born  in  her;  and  the  Highest  himself  shall  establish 
her." 

DR.  WATTS. 

Egypt  and  Tyre,  and  Greek  and 

Jew, 
Shall  there  begin  their  lives  anew ; 
'Twill  be  an  honor  to  appear 
As  one  new   born  and  nourished 

there. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  in  accordance  with  the  commenta- 
tors, the  venerable  church  of  Scotland  here  fixes  her  eye 
upon  "  the  Chiefest  among  ten  thousand,  the  One  alto- 
gether lovely/'  and  is  neither  ashamed  nor  a/raid  to 
make  the  reference  distinctly  visible  in  her  Psalmody. 

We  have  room  for  only  one  additional  example  of  this 
ancient  Scottish  "  gospel  turn."  It  is  in  Psalm  120: 
6-7  :  "  My  soul  hath  long  dwelt  with  him  that  hateth 
peace.  I  am  for  peace,  but  when  I  sptfak,  they  are  for 
war." 

DR.  WATTS. 

Peace  is  the  blessing  that  I  seek, 
How  lovely  are  it?  charms! 
I  am  for  peace — but  when  I  speak 
They  all  declare  for  arms. 


STERNHOLD. 
In  their  records  to  them  it  shall 
Through  God's  device  appeare, 
Of  Sion  that  the  Chief  of  all 
Had  his  beginning  there.* 


STERNHOLD. 

With  them  that  peace  did  hate 

/  came  a  peace  to  make 

And  set   a  quiet   life. 

But  when  my  tale  is  told, 

Causeless  I  was  controlde 

By  them  that  would  havo  strife. 


If  only  "  a  correct  and  faithful  version"  is  of  u  Divine 

*  "  I  have  often  indulged  the  liberty  of  paraphrase,  according  to  the  words  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles." — Dr.  Watts. 


THE    MORE    IXCBLUNl    WAY.  115 

appointment,"  neither  of  these  rereificatiana  has  very 
n  tensions  to  it.     But  ours  ifl  quite  a  literal  i 
pared  with  Sternhold.     Three  lines  of  Sternhold's  six 

paraphrastic  Watts  did  Dot  venture  to  give  this  ■ 
Kg  spel  turn;"  but  Sternhold  and  Hopkins  evidently 
had  in  their  eve  the  New  Testament  history  of  Christ 
the  "  Prince  of  peace,"  who  came  "a  peace  to  make" 
by  "the  blood  of  his  cross."  And  both  Bishop  Home 
an<l  I>r.  Bcbtt  in  their  comments,  direct  attention  to  ''the 
of  David,  the  Prince  of  peace,"  and  Scott  adds  that 
here  u  David  prefigured  Christ. "  So  thought  the  ancient 
church  of  Scotland,  and  accordingly  arranges  her  Psal* 
mody,  bo  as  to  express  this  blessed  truth.* 

We  could  easily  add  to  this  list  of  u  gospel  turns,"  but 
we  forbear.  It  thus  appears  that  from  the  period  of  her 
first  martyr,  down  to  the  Westminster  Assembly  (1643), 
the  church  of  Scotland  condemned  in  her  practice  the 
principle  which  requires  ua  correct  and  faithful  version 
as  of  Divine  appointment/'     It  appears,  moreover,  that 

se  variations  from  a  faithful  version  or  translation, 
were  designed,  deliberate)  made  on  principle,  and  not  at 
all  accidental,  or  to  be  attributed  to  haste,  carelessness^ 
or  the  difficulty  of  constructing  a  versification  in  rhyme. 
Many  of  them  are  the  very  Bame  sort  of  ttudied  depairU 

I  from   the   literal   text   for  which   our  Psalmody  has 

d  so  bitterly  and  unsparingly  denounced;  and  in  - 
eral  instances,  that  venerable  church,  with  her  martyrs 
and  other  men  of  God,  is  demonstrated  to  have  deliber- 
ately adopted  and  reduced  to  practiee  some  of  the  very 
principles  which  lie  at  the  basis  of  our  system,  and  that 
in  a  more  open,  obvious  u  impiontf1  manner  and  degree 
than  even  by  Dr.  Watts  himself ! 

It    is  },  therefore,  as    i>   well   remarked   by  Dr. 

])•  .   ri  Ige,  that  in  the  earliest  metred  Psalmody  of  that 

♦  "Whatii-  I  wrap  op  the  duning  fa 

my  B  i  ihadowy  I  -u  thai  is 

.'"     "  Wh.-u  fa  ■  bt  in  tnlargii  g  .t  little 

on   t:.  .:iuld 

:i." — Dr.    Watt*. 


116  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

church, "great  liberties  were  taken,"  and  that  these  liberties 
were  in  numerous  instances  of  the  very  same  sort  which  Dr. 
"Watts  adopted  in  constructing  his  system  of  praise,  much 
of  which  has  been  embodied  in  the  Presbyterian  Psalmo- 
dy; and  further,  that  those  identical  principles  for  which 
he  has  been  most  violently  abused  and  denounced,  are  here 
incorporated  and  acted  out  by  Sternhold,  and  practiced  by 
the  ancient  Scottish  church !  Hence  it  follows,  that  in  the 
structure  of  her  Psalmody,  the  Presbyterian  church,  by 
rejecting  the  exclusive  idea  of  "a  correct  and  faithful 
version  of  the  whole  book  of  Psalms,"  has  only  returned 
to  the  safe  precedent  and  pure  practice  of  the  noblest  and 
best  church  of  the  Protestant  Reformation,  in  the  days  of 
her  greatest  glory.  The  principle  is  the  same  in  both 
systems,  though  it  has  been  more  extensively  introduced 
in  our  Psalmody  than  in  theirs.  Both  equally  reject 
"  the  Divine  right"  of  "  a  correct  and  faithful  version  of 
the  Psalms" — in  both  the  right  and  duty  are  recognized 
and  deliberately  reduced  to  practice,  viz.  to  deviate  in 
various  methods  and  on  all  suitable  occasions,  from  "  a 
correct  and  faithful  version."  The  illustrations  which 
might  be  brought  forward  from  the  system  of  praise 
adopted  by  that  noble  old  Presbyterian  church,  would  fill 
many  pages,  since  more  or  less  of  the  same  additions, 
omissions,  historic  amendments,  exegetical  comments, 
"gospel  turns,"  &c,  might  be  collected  from  nearly 
every  page. 

We  pause  here.  Enough  has  been  said  to  enable  every 
one  to  decide  whether  "  the  songs  contained  in  the  book 
of  Psalms  are  virtually  excluded  from  the  worship  of  the 
(Presbyterian)  church."*  In  view  of  such  facts  and  reason- 
ings as  the  foregoing,  was  it  worthy  of  these  brethren  to 
publish  our  church  as  "  shoving  God's  hymn-book  aside, 
and  substituting  one  made  by  ourselves — laying  aside  a 
God-written  book,  except  two  short  hymns,  and  using  in 
its  place  a  man-written  book,"  which  they  interpret  to 
mean  that  "  a  mere  man  (Dr.  Watts,  for  example,)  has 
#  Dr.  Pressly,  in  the  Preacher,  September  27,  1814. 


Tin:   HORH    EXCELLENT   WAY.  117 

r  book  than  Grod.w  •      Certainly  Dr.  V 
luv.  r  exposed  himself  t<>  any  such  imputations,  wnce  his 
ivowed  object  was,  "that  the  Jewish    Psalmist  <!.'•,  his 
inspired  sentiments,)  should  plainly  aitkar,  yet  have 
Judaism  behind/1  f 

VI.   I  dose  this  Letter,  another  topic  demands 

*a  moment's  attention.     Is  there  any  great  importan 
bo  attached  t<>  the  explanatory  and  paraphrastic  improve- 
ments introduced  by  our  Scottish   forefathers,  and  ex- 
it >1  in  our  Psalmody  F     Was  there  a  necessity  tor  Bach 
explanations  of  parts  of  the  Psalms?     We  answer: 

1.  Bishop  Borne,  in  the  preface  to  his  commentary, 
remarks — "Is  it  not  to  be  feared  that  for  want  of  such 
instructions  (expositions,  ftc.)  the  repetition  of  the 
Psalms,  as  performed  by  multitudes,  is  but  on<   de 

leckanism."     Dr.  AVatts  Btates  this  thing  in  va- 
rious  forms,    and    undertook    his    versification    for    the 
remedying  this  sore  evil. 

'2.  Our  brethren  themselves  In  effect  concede  all  that 
is  asserted  by  Bishop  Home.  They  adopt  the  practice  of 
explaining  the  l>s<i/m  before  th<  sing  it.  at   least 

one  Psalm  each  Sabbath — the  others  they  have  unex- 
plained. Now  why  is  this  explanation  thought  to  be 
very  important?  One  writer  says,  "  It  is  to  stir  up  de- 
votional feelings,  and  prepare  the  worshipers  to  engag 
praising  God  with  suitable  affections."  J  But  is  that  all  ? 
Hear  Prof.  Patterson  |j  in  the  "  Westminster  Berald," 
February,  W>.">.  He  sayi — u  T%  Psalfns  requin  expo- 
sition"    u  That  all  may  sing  profitably  for  personal  and 

*  T'nit'^I  Presbyterian,  March,  1851. 

t  w.    ,  ;  ■  •••  Dr.  v  i'    ns.      u  /       ;       -  from  my 

l  LAY  A-ii'f.  Tin:  BoOI  OF  PSALMS  in  PUBLIC 

hi  pretend  -  It  ii 

•  rtful.  most derotional  and  Divitu   collection  of  poesy;   end 

nothing  eai  ipioni  soul  to  heaven, 

thai.  bat    book  ;    i 

i  bo  jnstty  i" 
d  Psalmody, 

I 
minister  of  the  : 


118  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

mutual  edification,  they  must  understand  them."  "  Peo- 
ple who  hardly  ever  hear  them  explained  know  nothing 
of  their  spiritual  worth."  He  says,  "  he  has  viewed  the 
decline  of  the  good  old-fashioned  plan  of  expounding 
a  part  of  the  Psalm,  with  feelings  of  deep  solicitude' ' — 
and  adds,  that  it  is  "a  manifest  declination  from  duty." 
"  Shall  these  well-springs  of  the  God  of  Israel  be  closed 
and  sealed  ?  "  These  expressions  are  more  than  Dr. 
Watts  ever  ventured  to  say  on  that  topic.  Prof.  P.  is 
thus  full  and  explicit,  though  we  do  not  see  why  his  re- 
marks do  not  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  five  other 
Psalms  sung  each  Sabbath,  as  well  as  to  the  first  one  used 
at  the  morning  service,  which  alone  is  explained.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  maintain  that  the  people  sing  the  minis- 
ter's explanations, — they  sing  "Rouse's  paraphrase," 
putting  the  minister's  explanations  on  the  words.  The 
Presbyterian  system  embodies  "  the  explanations,"  not 
in  all  the  Psalms,  but  in  all  cases  in  which  they  are 
needed,  in  the  poetry  itself.  They  are  usually  "  the  ex- 
planations" of  our  best  commentators  put  into  smooth 
verse.  If  both  parties  "  sing  with  the  spirit  and  under- 
standing also,"  as  Paul  requires,  both  employ  the  same 
sentiments,  the  chief  difference  consisting  only  in  the 
form  of  words,  whether  of  Rouse  or  Dr.  Watts. 


I    OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  119 


LETTER    X. 

ATTKMPTS     TO      CKKVTr.      PBBJUDICI     BY  TO      THK      BBHTI- 

.    IfATTfl —  HOU    I'M:    PRBSBT1  1POH- 

-     |     LTEMEHTfl  —  QRBATLY     MTSBBPRBSBHTID  — HIS 

I    OF    PSJJLMfl —  i:\amin  \Ti«>. v   op 

ITS  "  —  •'  WA1  N  RAH 

DAYID*-  -  HOT    THE    WORD   OF   QODM — '"  tends   TO 

-     <<F    IN<l'IKATl<>N" — M  THOSE    WII.i     i    - 
ii  ETfl    Tin;    TRUTH* — MDA1  ill  van    001 

.    AC. 

Mt  DEAB  Sir  : — In  reading  the  ablest  treatise?  by  our 
brethren,  one  thing  must  have  struck  every  candid  mind 
with  surprise,  viz.  the  labored  effort  they  make  to  arouse 
prejudice  and  create  odium  by  certain   quotations   from 
y"  and  u  prefaces"  of  Dr.    Walts.     We  are  re- 
told that    "the   imitation9'   was  introduced  to 
public  notice   in  this  country   by  "prefaces"  containing 
_  rinst  the  songs  of  Zion,  and  that  it  was  re- 
ided  by  1      -    sentiments,"  and   "the  arguments 
popular  and  frequently  used,  represent  these  Divine 
ns  (the  Psalms)  as  Christless."  * 
But  surely  it  requires  no  proof  to  show  that  the  essay 
and  prefaces  of  Dr.  W.  are  of  no  authority  in  our  church. 
She  has  never  indorsed,  nor  even  printed  them.     So  far 
M   baa  come  under  the  notice  of  the  writer,  they  have 
never  been  reprinted   in  tin's  country  ;  and  therefore   are 
j  rarely  to  be  met   with,  except  in  the   fragmentary 
found   in  certain  books  on  Psalmody  !     In  pre- 
paring the  materials  for  these  Letters,  we  searched  in  vain 

y  library  to  which  we  could  gain  access  in  Pittsbn: 
and  rful  in  finding  a  copy  of  Dr.W 

works,    only   in   the    library    of   a  gentleman    who   had 
.:  from  Europe.     The  Presbyterian  church,  as 
intimated  in  another  Letter,  has  never  adopted  many  of 
the  sentiments  and  suggestions  of  that  writer,  exhibiting 

v.  77. 


120  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

his  reasons  for  certain  changes  in  the  Psalms.  They  are 
his  reasons,  not  ours.  This  is  true  even  when  these 
reasons  are  understood  in  their  most  favorable  sense — 
and  especially  so,  when,  as  we  maintain,  they  are  perverted 
to  mean  what  is  notoriously  contrary  to  his  deliberate  and 
oft  repeated  declarations.  As  to  their  being  common 
and  popular  arguments  in  defense  of  our  Psalmody, 
nothing  is  more  opposed  to  the  truth.  The  writer  of 
these  pages  was  for  more  than  twenty -Jive  years  a  member  *> 
of  the  Presbyterian  body,  and  never  once  met  with  the 
documents  referred  to,  except  in  M' Master's  Apology, 
and  this  we  know  to  be  a  common  experience  both  among 
our  ministry  and  membership.  Indeed,  if  some  objection- 
able expressions  of  Dr.  Watts'  "  essay  and  prefaces"  had 
not  been  carefully  published  and  disseminated  by  these 
brethren,  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  prejudicing  the  cause 
of  a  New  Testament  Psalmody,  they  would  have  been 
dead  and,  forgotten  long  ago.  Upon  their  heads,  not  upon 
ours,  must  rest  the  blame,  whatever  it  may  be,  of  keep- 
ing certain  injudicious  phraseology  used  by  Dr.  Watts 
before  the  public  mind. 

But  Dr.  AV.  is  charged  with  having  uttered  "  bitter 
libels  against  the  songs  of  Zion."  We  have  never  met 
with  anything  from  his  pen,  which,  on  a  fair  construction, 
could  justify  such  an  assertion.  Dr.  W.  is  not  common- 
ly accused  with  wanting  common  sense  —  yet  he  must 
have  been  little  less  than  crazed  if  he  could  have  been 
guilty  of  such  profane  and  wicked  conduct,  while  in  the 
same  pages  he  wrote  as  follows  :  "I  esteem  the  book  of 
Psalms  as  the  most  valuable  part  of  the  Old  Testament, 
on  many  accounts.-  I  advise  the  reading  and  meditation 
of  it  more  frequently  than  any  single  book  of  Scripture ; 
and  what  I  advise  I  practice.  Nothing  is  more  proper 
to  furnish  our  souls  with  devout  thoughts  and  Lead  us 
into  a  world  of  spiritual  experiences.  The  expressions 
of  it  that  are  not  Jewish  or  peculiar,  give  us  constant  as- 
sistance in  prayer  and  in  praise." 

Again,  I  quote  Dr.  W.:  "Although  there  are  many 


SOME   OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  121 

gone  before  me  who  have  taught  the  Hebrew  Psalmist  to 
•peak  English,  (translators,)  yet  I  think  I  may  assume 
this  pleasure,  of  being  the  firat  who  bath  brought  down 
the  r«>yal  author  into  the  common  affaire  of  the  Christian 
(in  opposition  to  Jewish)  life,  and  fed  the  Psalmist  of 
'•/  into  the  church  of  Christ  without  anything  of  a 
Jew  about  him/1  u  My  design  was  that  the  Jewish 
Psalmist  thould  plainly  appear^  yet  leave  Judaism  be- 
hind." 

Another  ([notation  from  Dr.  Watts  :  u  I  confess  it  is  not 
unlawful  nor  absurd  for  a  person  of  knowledge  and  skill 
to  ring  any  pari  of  the  Jewish  Psalm  book,  and  consider 
it  merely  as  the  word  of  God,  from  which,  by  wise  medi- 
tation, he  may  draw  some  inferences  for  his  own  use. 
But  when  the  words  are  obscure  Hebraisms,  or  the  poet 
personates  a  Jew,  a  soldier,  or  a  king,  speaking  to  him- 
self or  to  God,  this  mode  of  instruction  in  a  song  seems 
not  so  natural  or  easy,  even  to  the  most  skillful  Christian, 
and  it  is  almost  impracticable  to  the  greatest  part  of 
man/chid."  Dr.  W.  is  here  explaining  one  chief  princi- 
ple in  the  formation  of  his  system  of  Psalmody,  and  in- 
stead of  proposing  an  "  impious  rejection  of  the  Psalms," 
he  assigns  a  most  forcible  and  conclusive  reason  for  the 
practice  of  u  explaining  the  Psalm/'  before  the  congre- 
gation sing  it. 

I  repeat,  therefore,  the  man  who  could  indite  these  and 

res  of  similar  paragraphs,  must  have  been  destitute  of 
c  ramon  sense,  if  in  the  same  connections  he  could  {ibiU 
terly  libel"  the  precious  book  of  Psalms.  But  as  this  is 
effective,  certainly  the  most  popular y  of  all  the 
arguments  of  our  opposing  brethren,  we  defer  some  other 
illustrations  of  the  treatment  they  give  Dr.  Watts  to  our 
dosing  Letter,  No.  X  I  V, 

Let  ns  now  attend  to  some  objections  to  our  theory  of 

1.   [1  is  objected  that  "following  Dr.  Watts,  we  omit 

Some   parts   of  the  book  of  Psalms."      Very  true.      Our 

principle  is  that  "the  whole  word  of  God  is  of  use  to 

11 


122  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

direct  us  "  in  praise  as  well  as  "  in  prayer."  We  regard 
some  parts  of  the  New  Testament  as  suitable  for  praise. 
But  what  shall  we  say  of  Rouse's  omissions,  for  example, 
the  20th  verse  of  the  72d  Psalm,  and  the  greater  part 
of  the  titles  or  inscriptions,  which  Home  and  other 
standard  writers  admit  to  be  parts  of  the  inspired  text, 
as  really  as  the  first  verses  of  Isaiah  and  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians.  You  profess  to  regard  the  Psalms  as 
"  the  inspired  Psalter,"  given  precisely  in  sum  and  sub- 
stance as  Divine  Wisdom  saw  best,  for  purposes  of 
praise — and  yet  you  venture  to  make  these  improvements 
upon  "  God's  Psalm  book  " — to  reject  a  part  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  &c! 

Again :  In  his  preface  to  the  recent  "  improved  ver- 
sion," published  under  direction  of  a  committee  of  the 
Associate  or  Seceder  church,  Dr.  Beveridge  says  :  "  In  a 
few  instances  things  omitted  in  our  version  (Rouse)  have 
been  restored.  See,  for  example,  Psalm  31  :  11; 
Psalm  37  :  35,  36 ;  Psalm  62  :  1-5  ;  Psalm  78  :  21 ; 
Psalm  128  :  2,  3."  Here  is  the  same  dilemma.  Pro- 
fessing to  regard  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  Psalms  as 
exclusively  "  God's  Psalter,"  indited  for  this  very  pur- 
pose by  the  Infinite  Mind  and  "appointed  as  the  Psalmo- 
dy of  the  church,"  as  Dr.  Pressly  says,  "  in  which  God 
teaches  his  church  how  to  praise,"  you  dare  to  tamper 
with  God's  work ;  by  omitting  parts  of  God's  teaching, 
you  thus  destroy  the  Divine  completeness  of  the  Psalm 
book  composed  and  appointed  by  Infinite  Wisdom  ! 

On  the  principle  adopted  by  these  brethren,  to  omit 
any  part  of  the  book  of  Psalms  is  to  pretend  to  be  wiser 
than  God,  who  gave  it  all  to  be  the  Psalm  book  of  the 
church ;  and  is  nothing  short  of  the  impiety  which 
"takes  away  from  the  word  of  God."  We  reject  this 
view  of  the  subject,  believing  that  God  has  given  his 
"whole  word  to  direct  us  in  praise"  —  and  therefore  we 
are  no  more  obliged  to  sing  every  part  of  the  Psalms, 
than  to  sing  every  other  part  of  the  inspired  records.  But 
this  plea  oilers  no  excuse  for  these  brethren's  "omissions." 


SOME    OBJECTIONS    ANSWKUED.  128 

A  parallel  case  is  this:  ''All  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God,  ami  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  n  |  roof, 
instruction   in   righteousness."     The   reading   of   th 

turefl    from    the    pulpit,  is   an   ordinance    of  (J  id    as 

really  as  public  praise.     Bui  arc  there  not  porti<  ds  of 
the  inspired  writings  which  no  man  of  common  b 
ever  dart*  to  read  to  the  people  I     Why?    Those  parts 

of  Qod'fi  blessed  word  are  not  snitahle  to  be  read  pul 
lv,   though  anciently   read   in  the  synagogues  —  in    that 
way  they  are  not  profitable  for  instruction  in  righteous- 

iif--.     Let  any  minister  rise  in  the  sacred  desk  and  i 

for  example,  some  parts  of  the  Levitical  law  —  how  many 
hearers  would  he  have  on  the  next  Sabbath?  How  soon 
would  he  be  called  to  account  by  his  Presbytery,  as  lack- 
ing common  sense  !  But  does  any  one  ever  dream  of 
this  being  an  impious  attempt  to  be  iciscr  than  God? 
Apply  the  same  reasoning  to  the  whole  word  of  God  c 
sidered  as  of  use  to  direct  us  in  praise  as  well  as  in 
prayer  ami  reading — and  everything  is  clear.  And  the 
same  reasoning  holds  good  in  regard  to  the  ordinance  of 
]  reaching.  I*  not  the  whole  inspired  volume  of  use  to 
direct  us  in  this  service?  But  there  are  certain  : 
which  none  but  a  fool  would  ever  make  the  foundation 
of  a  sermon.  Now  in  omitting  certain  parts  of  the 
Psalms  as  less  suitable  for  praise  than  some  other  parts 
of  the  inspired  volume  outside  of  that  book,  we  offer  no 
reproach  to  any  part  of  God's  word,  but  do  equal  h 
to  all  portions  of  the  Divine  volume,  designed  a-  they 
.  for  different  uses  in  the  church.  If,  indeed,  there 
were  any  "Divine  precept"  to  sing  every  jot  and  tittle 

of  the  1 '.-alius,  we  Would  do  it.  So  if  there  were  a  scrip- 
tural command  to  read  publicly  every  text  of  the  Bible, 
We  Would  do  that  too  ! 

-.   It  i-  objected  that  our  system  involves  the  daring 

implication,  "  that  a  liu  re  man  18  able  to  improve  '  I  I 

J  'f  dm  book,'  and  '  to  write  better  than  the  Holy  Spirit.'  n 
This  objection  comes  with  a  bad  grace  fruin  those  who 


124  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

use  "  Rouse's  paraphrase,"  with  all  its  errors,  omissions, 
additions,  explanations,  &c.     For  example  : 

°  I  like  an  owl  in  desert  am, 
Which  nightly  there  doth  moan." 

The  second  line  is  a  mere  human  improvement,  an  expla- 
nation (whether  right  or  wrong)  of  what  the  Psalmist 
meant.  Scores  of  these  improvements,  as  we  have  al- 
ready shown,  are  found  in  Rouse  —  therefore  it  follows 
that  these  brethren  have  thought  they  "  could  write  bet- 
ter than  the  Holy  Spirit  !"  Or  at  least  they  have 
attempted  to  improve  upon  "  God's  Psalm  book." 

3.  Another  objection:  "You  Presbyterians  do  not 
sing  the  word  of  God."  But  is  Rouse  the  pure  word  of 
God  ?  Is  the  second  line  above  quoted  found  among 
"  the  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth  V9  There  is 
an  important  scriptural  sense,  however,  agreeably  to 
which  a  large  part  of  our  Psalmody  is  "the  word  of 
God  " — the  sense  in  wThich  Paul  uses  these  terms  when 
he  exhorts,  "  Preach  the  word."  Compare  the  method 
we  adopt,  with  some  other  parts  of  Divine  worship : 
Does  the  able  lecturer  on  large  passages  of  Scripture, 
preach  the  word  of  God  ?  Does  the  minister  who  ex- 
plains the  Psalms  teach  the  word  of  God  ?  True,  it 
is  sometimes  transposed,  to  increase  the  light  to  our 
feeble  vision ;  sometimes  too  the  preacher  selects  particu- 
lar sections ;  sometimes  when  the  same  idea  occurs  fre- 
quently, he  groups  the  verses  together.  At  other  times 
he  will  group  texts  from  remote  parts  of  the  Bible,  as  the 
ground  work  of  a  particular  sermon,  and  adduce  his 
proofs  and  illustration  from  every  accessible  source  of 
Holy  Writ.  Still  this  does  not  make  it  less  "  the 
word  of  God."  So  we  say  of  the  system  of  Psalmody 
used  by  the  Presbyterian  church.  Dr.  Watts  has  grouped 
with  the  Psalms  much  of  the  thought  and  language  of 
the  New  Testament,  but  this  mixture  does  not  make  it 
less  truly  "the  word  of  God."  We  do  not  mean  that  the 
two  things  are  in  all  respects  the  same  or  exactly  paral- 


SOME   OBJECTIONS    ANSWEB 

lei,  but  in  this  particular  point  tin  v  arc  the  Same  in  ]. nu- 
ll' then  the  sound  minister   "preaches    the    M 

in  Beason,  out  of  season/'  on  the  same  principle  we  Bing 
the  word  of  God.     If  the  Bame  minister  in  explaining 
tiii:   Psalm,  gives  a  correct  interpretation,  and  ten. 
"the  word  of  God,"  and  the  people  Bing  with  this 
planation  fresh  in  their  minds,  and  forming  the  sentiments 
of  their   hearts;   with   equal  certainty  do  we  Worship  in 

the  use  of  "the  word  <»t'  Sod."     The  language  is  but 

/ — the  worship  is  the  utterance  of  the    SENTIMENTS 

OF    ill K    HEABT.      If  these   latter  are  acceptable  t<»  God, 

able  t<»  Divine  teaching,  the  worship  is  "in 

spirit   and  in  truth/1  whether  we  Bing  the  prose   of  the 

glish  translation  of  the  Scriptures  or  poetry  arrang 

by  an   uninspired    man   (Rouse),  or  an   "imitation"  in 

which  "David  (i.  e.,  his  inspired  sentiments)  plainly 

appears,"  and   types   and   shadows,  bullocks,  burnt  offer- 

j3  trumpets,  cornets,   dances,  &o.,  dissolve  amid  the 

I  and  transforming  light  of  the  gospel. 
We  do  n<>t  plead  that  our  system  of  Psalmody  is  per- 
fect.      Particular  examples  may  possibly   be   adduced  in 
which  the  great  "principle"  adopted  by  Dr.  Watts,  viz. 
u  t  i  make  David  I  his  inspired  sentiments)  plainly  to  ap- 
•"'  is  imperfectly  developed.    Bat  there  are  also  _ 
ra  in  Rouse.     l>r.  Dwignt  has  supplied  the   Psalms 
omitted  by  Hr.  Watts;    and  if  in   a  few  others,  certain 
parts  are  omitted,  they  uo  more  vitiate  the  whole  system 
than  blunders  vitiate  that  used  by  our  brethren. 

If  any  Berious  departures  from  our  principle  art 
ered   in   our  system,  it  is  the  province  of  our  General 
nbly  to  supply  the  d 
In  both  systems  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  tin  i 
numb       I  Psalms  which  approach  so  near   "a  eoi 
and  literal  version''  of  I  .1,  as  to  entitle  them  to 

be  regarded  as  "inspired  Bongs  of  praise" — but  it  is  no 
1  AS  true  that.  r  extent,  both  Rouse  and  Watts 

are  neitb  nor  less  than  "paraphrases."     Th< 

.  be  mart  or  leu  paraphrastio  than  the  other;  but 
11* 


126  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

that  alters  not  the  principle.  He  that  strains  at  Watts, 
while  he  readily  swallows  Rouse,  will  not  be  suspected 
of  great  consistency. 

4.  Fourth  objection.  The  Presbyterian  principle  in 
Psalmody  "  tends  to  make  the  mind  indifferent  to  the 
claims  of  inspiration."  We  maintain  "  that  all  Scripture 
being  given  by  inspiration  of  God/'  it  is  lawful  to  sing 
any  suitable  part  of  it,  whether  of  the  Old  or  New  Testa- 
ment; and  that  the  church  has  a  Divine  warrant  for 
drawing  the  subjects  of  her  praise  from  other  parts  of  the 
word  of  God.  Consequently,  that  she  may  and  ought  to 
derive  much  of  her  praise  from  the  inspired  writers  of 
the  New  Testament,  which  has  so  much  more  clearly  re- 
vealed the  character,  offices  and  work  of  Christ. 

Now  can  any  intelligent  Christian  inform  us  how  such 
a  "  principle"  tends  to  make  men  infidels  ?  Instead  of 
some  things  descriptive  of  Jewish  rites  and  ceremonies 
now  abolished  and  forbidden,  events  in  some  of  the  Jew- 
ish wars,  (see  Home,  Dr.  Scott  and  others,)  prayers  for 
the  destruction  of  the  enemies  of  David  as  the  king  of  the 
Jews,  (see  the  commentators,)  and  some  other  matters  of 
this  kind  which  were  highly  appropriate  to  the  Jews,  but 
which  probably  would  never  have  been  thought  of  as 
literal  matter  of  praise  in  the  New  Testament  church, 
if  found  in  any  other  part  of  the  Holy  Scriptures — in- 
stead of  these  we  feel  authorized  by  the  word  of  God  to 
sing  the  songs  of  Mary,  Anna,  Simeon,  "  the  heavenly 
host,"  and  in  fine  any  suitable  part  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. In  addition,  therefore,  to  the  Psalms,  we  rejoice  to 
praise  God  in  the  use  of  several  hundred  hymns,  em- 
bracing the  chief  instructions  delivered  by  the  Blessed 
Redeemer  and  his  apostles. 

Would  to  God  the  whole  world  were  full  of  such  inft- 
clelit//  as  this  !  We  are  perfectly  sure  that  there  is  a 
much  stronger  tendency  toward  loose,  infidel  conceptions 
in  another  quarter.  When  ministers  of  the  gospel  speak 
of  "  Ptouse's  paraphrase"  as  the  "  inspired  Psalms," 
"  the  very  songs  which  God  has  given,"  "God's  Psalm 


BOM!   01  -    ANSWEBKD.  127 

'.."  &o.,  it  is  an  abuse  of  language  leading  directly 
to  false  and  heretical  viewa  of  inspiration,  and  accustom- 
ing the  people  to  the  low  Socinian  conceptions  of  Belsham 
applying  that  term  to  the  patchwork  of 
-•and  others.      This  is  a  serious  evil;  nor  does  it 
"loan  to  virtu  but  to  the  ride  of  a  most  danger* 

.  stroying  heresy,     [f  you  teach  the  people  to  re- 
gard  "  Rouse's  paraphrase"   as  the  inspired  Psalms,  it 
would  be  quite  easy  for  them   to  go   a   stop  further,  and 
;.ve  the  doctrines  of  Priestly  and  his  Unitarian  Col- 
li w 

It  has  been  proved  that  House's  paraphrases  are 
inspired  just  as  the  pulpit  explanation*  at  your  morning 
ice.  We  do  nut  say  this  of  a  goodly  number  of 
his  Psalms,  which  are  quite  closely  and  accurately  versi- 
fied, but  only  <>f  his  numerous  paraphrases;  and  to  speak 
of  these  as  "  the  inspired  Psalms/1  istoconfound  all  distinc- 
tion between  that  which  is  inspired  and  that  which  is  un- 
inspired— i  human  and  Divine.  Our  brethren 
.id  look  at  honu ,  when  they  inquire  after  tendencies 
to  reject  the  doctrine  of  l>i\Mie  inspiration. 

5.    Fifth  obj<  ction.     u  In  the  exclusive  use  of  the  one 
hundred  and  fifty  Psalms  we  nlay  be  confident  of  sin<jiit<j 
-rath,   and  of  praising   God  with  sentiments  suitable 
and   acceptable  to   Him.''      Let   us   test  this  statement. 
We  go  to  the  Synod  of  Ulster,  IrelandT,  as  it  was  some 
here  nothing  but  the  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
Ims  were  used,  aid  when  the  heresy  of  Arianism  had 
Well  nigh  swallowed  up  all  the  churches.      We  enter  one 
of  these  Arian  establishments.     The  minister  rises  and 
explains  the  second  Psalm,  informing  the  people   that 
3  '11."'  ii>  "an  tinted,"  i>  a  mere   creature 
of  a  very  high  order ;  that  to   up  rish   from  the  way," 
meau  any  tiling  more  than  Borne  tempoEral  evil, 
that  hell  ia  an   Eastern  Cable,  &o.      With  this  explana- 
tion fresh   in  their  minds,  the   <■<  Qgregation   sing   the 
Psalm.     I1'  thej  "praim   God  with  tentit 

liable  to  Himf"     In  what  correct  Bense  do  they 


128  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

even  "  sing  the  truth. "  Their  lips  may  utter  the  lan- 
guage of  truth,  but  their  hearts  are  filled  with  a  subtle 
and  soul  destroying  heresy.  With  their  lips  and  lan- 
guage, they  "draw  nigh  to  God ;"  but  what  does  the 
heart  utter  before  Him  —  the  answer  is,  falsehood  and 
impiety. 

It  will  not  be  pretended  that  even  if  our  brethren 
sung  the  prose  in  our  Bibles,  the  naked  words  would  con- 
stitute "  the  truth. "  The  truth  is  the  Divine  sentiment, 
the  thought,  not  the  verbiage.  Then  what  is  the  sentiment 
of  an  Arian,  who  has  just  received  and  believes  the  "ex- 
planation" of  his  Arian  pastor?  Surely  not  the  truth, 
but  heresy,  however  correct  the  words  which  flow  from 
his  lips.  So  too  the  Jews  in  their  synagogues  sing  the 
Psalms  of  David,  the  second  among  the  rest.  Do  they 
too  sing  the  truth,  while  cursing  the  Lord  Jesus  in  their 
heart?  We  admit  that  it  is  no  objection  to  any  part  of 
the  Old  Testament  that  it  is  read  or  sung  by  Jews  and 
Arians.  All  that  we  now  contend  for  is,  that  the  fact 
of  their  thus  reading  or  singing  is  no  certain  evidence 
that  as  it  is  explained  to  them,  they  either  read  or  sing 
u  the  truth."  They  may  read  the  words  which  contain 
the  truth — but  so  do  men  often  "  draw  nigh  to  God  with 
their  lips,  while  their  heart  is  far  from  him."  And  we  may 
safely  affirm,  that  neither  Arian  nor  Jew  could  be  per- 
suaded to  join  with  the  Presbyterians  in  singing  these 
verses  of  Dr.  Watts'  paraphrase  of  the  2d  Psalm  : 

The  things  so  long  foretold 

By  David,  are  fulfilled  : 

When  Jews  and  Gentiles  join  to  slay 

Jesus,  thine  holy  Child! 

I  call  him  my  eternal  Sox, 
And  raise  him  from  the  dead; 
I  make  my  holy  hill  his  throne, 
And  wide  his  kingdom  spread. 

Be  wise,  ye  rulers  of  the  earth, 
Obey  the  anointed  Lord  ; 
Adore  the  King  of  heavenly  birth, 
And  tremble  at  his  word. 


( >r  thi 


Or  this, 


SOMl  WKRED.  129 


•  v  God,  thy  blood  alone 
Hath  power  rafneienfl  to  tl 
Thy  blood  can  make  dm  white  m 

uim  me  to* 

Aside  the  Prince  of  glorj  threw 

ine  array. 
And  wrapped  hii  GtOD-HBAS  in  a  veil 
Of  our  inferior  clay. 


nana   maintain  that    the   Psalmody  of    the 
istian  church,  like  all  her  other  institutions,  should 
ct  the  light  of  the  New  Testament,  which  no  Jew- 
will  take  into  his  hands,  except  to  gnt  upon  it.     Why 
so?       Because    it    BO   clearly   reveals    "Christ    and    his 
cross. M     It  is  not  denied  that  good  men  have  often  com- 
muned with  their  Saviour  in  the  Psalms — so  they  have 
found  him  in  innumerable  forms  of  the  Leyitical  law. 
But  that  does  not  prove  that  in  New  Testament  worship, 
^31  further  light  is  needless  I     What  would  be  thought 
of  the  preaching  and   the  public  prayers,   which,  in   the 
would  leave  a  stranger  habit- 
ually in  doubt  whether  he   sat  in  the  presence  of  Chris- 
tians or  Jews  ?     Yet  just   so  is  it   in  public  praise  with 
the  Old  Testament   Psalms,   except  as  their  u  explana- 
nati«»n"  alters  the  case.       We  admit  that   there  is   much 
of  Christ  in  them,  and  so  was  there  in  the  Lcvitical  sac- 
rifices as  types  of  "  the  Lamb  of  God."      But  does  that 
pr<>vc  that  in  either  case  the  far  brighter  displays  of  Di- 
love  and  mercy  under  the  gospel  are  needless  to  the 
church  in   her  forms  of  public  prai-c  *'      No    more  than  it 
-  thrii)  useless  in  ['reaching  and  pr 
Suppose  it  should  he  truly  reported  of  all  the  ministers 
who  use  exclusively  the  Old  Testament  Psalms,  that  their 
preaching  and  public p  stimony"  such 

d  1  an  Avian,  or  even  i  Jew,  in  regard  to  the 
Divinity  and  Messiahship  of  Christ  Would  such  i  re- 
putation nplimentt  What  Christian 
church  would  seek  for  such  pastors?      Yet  that  very  cir- 


130  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

cumstance,  which  would  expose  their  preaching  and 
prayers  to  the  rebuke  of  Paul,  viz.  that  their  "  trumpet 
gives  an  uncertain  sound" — this  very  deficiency  which 
would  exclude  them  from  Christian  pulpits,  is  found  in  their 
system  of  praise  I  The  Arians  of  Ulster  and  the  Jews 
everywhere  gladly  hold  fellowship  with  them  in  the  or- 
dinance of  praise,  at  least  as  often  as  they  sing  without 
a  pulpit  " explanation."  Can  this  be  the  method  in 
which  the  Lord  Jesus  requires  us  to  "  confess  him  be- 
fore men  ?  "  And  this  argument  has  special  force 
against  those  who  think  it  necessary  to  prepare  and  pub- 
lish a  pamphlet  "  Testimony"  against  their  Presbyterian 
brethren — against  "  views  and  practices"  which,  they 
say,  "  demand  of  them  such  'testimony'  as  witnesses  for 
the  truth!"  And  yet,  in  five  parts  out  of  every  six  of 
all  their  public  praise,  their  "  trumpet  gives  so  uncertain 
a  sound,"  their  testimony  for  important  truth  is  so  fee- 
ble, that  Jews  and  Arians  hold  communion  with  them ! 
Is  there  not  great  inconsistency  and  error  here  ? 

It  is  no  valid  objection  to  this  reasoning,  that  Arians 
and  Jews  pervert  in  like  manner  the  whole  Bible.  The 
Jew  indeed  hates  the  New  Testament,  because  it  is  so  full 
of  the  cross — but  he  receives  the  Old  Testament.  The 
Arian  professes  some  sort  of  faith  in  both  Testaments. 
But  such  ir.  the  blindness  and  wickedness  of  man,  that 
even  God's  word,  as  it  has  pleased  its  glorious  Author  to 
give  it  to  mankind,  is  found  insufficient  to  exclude  error 
from  his  church.  Hence  nearly  all  denominations  form 
creeds  and  confessions  of  faith  as  a  remedy  for  resulting 
evils,  and  our  brethren  add  a  formal  "  Testimony"  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  their  Confession,  to  testify  for  the 
truth  as  they  hold  it. 

Now  why  is  all  this  ?  Obviously  that  they  as  u  faith- 
ful witnesses  for  the  truth,"  may  make  an  open  and  in- 
telligible protest  against  error,  which  they  admit  could 
not  be  done  by  simply  taking  the  Bible,  "  the  perfect 
law  of  God,"  as  their  creed  and  "  Testimony."  And 
what  is  the  object  of  their  preaching  and  their  "expla- 


BOMB   OBJECTION   ans\vki:i:i>.  181 

nations"  of  the  IValms  ?      Plainly  that  they  may  be  u  va- 
liant for  the  truth  in  the  earth.       The  Bible,  they  i 
oed<  ittratiom  and  helps,  in 

order  that  error  may  be  excluded  and  pure  religion  make 
>.  and  finally  and  universally  triumph.      Yea,  the 
t  law,   makes    those  additional  minis- 
trations of  creeds,  preaching,  &c.,  a  tofann  duty,      Ai  1 
by  these  methods  the  Axian  and  other  soul  destroy 

are  banished  from  the  church.      Thus   in    their 

ud  testimonies,  in  reading  and  expounding  the 

I  in  public  prayer,  these  brethren  clearly 

and    distinctly    lift    up   a   banner   fur   the  truth  as  they 

view  it. 

But  there  is  one  wtrange  exception  !     In  five  parts  of 
every  six  of  their  public  praise,  they  are  found  deficient 
in  testifying  fur  the  truth  !     Their  trumpet  gives  "so  un- 
:n  a  Bound"  that   the  Jew  and  the  Arian  can  hold 
\v>hip  with   them  !     While   they  lift  up  their  voices 
bher,  in  five-sixthi  of  their  public  i>rni<>  it  is  impos- 
ts tell  which  is  the  Jew  and  which   the   Christian  ! 
The  ■  igh  bitterly  hating  Christ,  joins  in  worship 

with  the  Christian,  and  finds  nothiug  to  offend  him — the 
Arian,  too,  unites  cheerfully  in  a  wurship  which  allows 
him  to  regard  "God's  own  Son"  only  as  an  "exalted 
creature  !"     In  five  parts  of  every  six,  they  praise  I 

8  kbbathj  in   strains   to   which   neither  Jews   nor 
OS   object!     These  brethren  do  not  thus  preach  the 
1 — they  are  not  thus  defective  in  other  ministrations, 
such  as  the  public  exposition  of  the  Scriptures  and  praj 
It  is  only  in  the  ascription  of  praise  that  their  "coni 
.    of  the  name  of  the   Lord  Jesus"  is  so  indistinct, 
-  so  uncertain  a  Bound,  that  the  _ 
stfl  harmonise  with  the  friends  of  the  gospel.     Can 
ay  "  which  th< 
nour  i  :  them  that  offer  pi 

taking  reproachfully 
of  t'.  "      Nothing  is  farther  from  the 

truth,     v  Imirable  buuk  | 


132  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

what  you,  by  your  creed  and  "Testimony,"  say  of  the 
whole  Bible,  viz.  that  it  demands  of  the  church  certain 
additional  explanatory  forms  of  "witnessing  for  the 
truth,"  as  bonds  of  harmony  and  tests  of  soundness  in  the 
faith,  as  well  as  ramparts  against  heresy.  As  a  very  pre- 
cious portion  of  the  holy  oracles ;  as  in  part  the  text-book 
of  the  ministry ;  as  an  invaluable  source  of  "  learning," 
and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures,  &c,  the  Psalms,  like  the 
whole  Bible,  are  precisely  what  they  ought  to  be,  most 
excellent  productions  of  Infinite  Wisdom.  But  believing, 
as  we  do,  the  church  to  be  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth"  she  is  bound  to  confess  Christ  just  as  plainly  and 
unequivocally  in  praise,  as  in  preaching  and  prayer ;  and 
we,  therefore,  deny  that  "the  book  of  Psalms"  was  de- 
signed by  its  Divine  Author,  especially  in  its  literal  and 
naked  form,  to  be  the  only  and  all-sufficient  volume  of 
praise.  And  yet  there  are  those,  strange  to  tell,  yea, 
ministers  of  the  gospel,  who  boast  of  the  an ti- sectarian 
character  of  "House's  paraphrase,"  because,  forsooth, 
Jews,  Mormons,  Unitarians,  &c,  can  unite  in  singing  it ! 

6.  A  sixth  objection.  "We  dare  not  sing  '  human 
composition '  in  the  worship  of  God."  Well,  if  any  one 
can  really  persuade  himself  that  dozens  of  "Rouse's  par- 
aphrases" are  "inspired  composition,"  we  shall  not 
attempt  to  reason  with  him.  All  who  use  Rouse  are  ne- 
cessarily guilty  of  this  sin. 

7.  "If  some  parts  of  the  Psalms  are  unsuitable  for 
praise,  they  are  not  fit  to  be  read." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  pronounce  any  parts  of  the 
Psalms  absolutely,  and  under  all  circumstances,  unfit  to 
be  sung.  Our  doctrine  is,  that  some  portions  of  that 
book  are  less  suitable  to  be  sung  under  the  present  dispen- 
sation, than  many  other  parts  of  the  holy  oracles.  But 
do  not  our  brethren  maintain  that  large  parts  of  both 
Testaments  are  unsuitable  for  public  praise  ?  Take  the 
first  chapter  of  1st  Chronicles — "  Adam,  Sheth,  Enosh," 
&c.  They  will  concede  that  this  is  not  fit  for  public 
praise,  and  so  of  other  whole  books,  except  the  one  hundred 


DEFENSE    OF    SCRIPTURAL    HYV.  133 

and  fifty  Psalms.  Are  they  therefore  unfit  to  be  read? 
Certainly  Qod  may  speak  to  us  in  language  which  we 
may  n<it  speak  to  him. 

8.  "  The  k  imitation '  by  Dr.  Watts,  is  not  much  more 
of  an  imitation  of  the  Psalms,  than  Young's  Night 
Thoughts,  or  Pollok's  Course  of  Time/'  This  extraor- 
dinary assertion  has  been  deliberately  printed  and  circu- 
lated, in  at  least  three  different  forms  within  a  few  years. 
It  furnishes  a  sad  illustration  of  the  extreme  folly  to 
which  the  furor  of  controversy  will  sometimes  hurry 
otherwise  serious  and  true  men. 

Having  now  finished  all  that  I  deemed  necessary  to 
vindicate  Presbyterian  usages  in  regard  to  the  book  of 
Psalms,  in  my  next  I  propose  to  speak  of  "the  other 
songs  of  Scripture/'  which  our  brethren  call  "corrup- 
tions of  the  ordinance  of  God/'  when  sung  in  public  and 
private  worship. 


LETTER   XI. 

HYMNS — TITE    IIISTORY    OF    "  OTHER    SONGS    OF    ■CBJfTUBXM — FSAGES 

OF    MOST    OF   THE    SCOTTISH    CM U BOMBS,    VIZ.:    2,S00    TO    30 ACTION 

OF   THE    EARLY   FATHERS   Of   T!iK  AftSOClATfl    reformed    CHURCH — 

ML  m'master's  sentiments — present  views  <>f  i>rs.  kerr  and 

ILT  —  A     GLANCE    AT     THE     LEGITIMATE      KESILTS A     LARGE 

PART  Of  DB,  watts'  hymns  ABB  fair  paraphrases  OF  portions 
OF  THE  INSPIRED  BBCOBO,  AND  BO  HOBB  "  1ITMAN  COMPOSH  [OH  " 
THAN    BOUtl  —  DBfBBSB    OF   the    remainder. 

My  Dear  Sir:  —  Before  proceeding  to  discuss  the 
merits  of  that  large  department  of  our  Psalmody,  viz. 
"the  other  scriptural  songs/'  &c.,  a  glance  at  the  history 
of  the  subject  may  tend  to  its  better  elucidation  In  a 
firmer  Letter  reference  was  made  to  the  directions  given 
by  t:  'i  Qeneral  Assembly  of  1047,  to  "Zachary 

Boyd  to  translate  the  other  scriptural  songs  in  metre, 
*  *  *  that  after  examination  they  may  send  the  same 
to  the  Presbyteries."     In  1648,  k'  Master  John  Aduin- 

12 


134  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

eon  and  Mr.  Thomas  Crawford  were  directed  to  revise  the 
labors  of  Zachary  Boyd  upon  the  other  scriptural  songs, 
*  *  *  that  after  examination  the  same  may  be  report- 
ed to  the  next  General  Assembly."  In  1649,  the  As- 
sembly ordered  their  commission  for  public  affairs  "to 
emit  (Rouse's)  paraphrase  of  the  Psalms  for  public  use;" 
but  the  labors  of  Z.  Boyd  do  not  seem  have  been  author- 
ized ;  and  it  is  no  matter  of  surprise.  They  appear  to 
have  possessed  very  small  poetical  merit.  This  history, 
however,  clearly  demonstrates  that  the  Scottish  Assembly 
even  at  that  early  day,  were  desirous  of  some  improve- 
ment and  extension  of  their  Psalmody.  Nor  do  they 
seem  to  have  had  any  fear  of  committing  a  certain  great 
sin ! 

Accordingly  at  a  later  date,  that  venerable  church  au- 
thorized and  constantly  prints  in  her  Bibles,  what  she 
calls  "translations  and  paraphrases  of  several  passages 
of  Scripture."  They  are  seventy-two  in  number,  the  last 
five,  however,  being  pure  "hymns  of  human  composition," 
not  even  professing  to  be  founded  on  a  passage  of  Holy 
Writ.  These  additions  to  "Rouse's  paraphrase "  are  com- 
monly annexed  to  the  Psalms  in  metre,  at  the  end  of  the 
Bible. 

When  the  "Free  church  of  Scotland"  separated  from 
the  Establishment,  they  made  no  change  in  Psalmody. 
Accordingly,  at  the  solemn  funeral  services  of  their  As- 
sembly in  May,  1847.  on  occasion  of  the  death  of  Dr. 
Chalmers,  "the  proceedings  were  commenced  by  the 
Moderator  giving  out  the  last  three  verses  of  the  53d 
paraphrase,"  not  a  Psalm  of  David  : 

"  The  saints  of  God  from  death  set  free, 
With  joy  shall  mount  on  high/'  <fcc. 

Some  of  our  brethren  in  this  quarter,  of  course  condemn 
such  "an  impious  preference  of  an  English  poet  over 
David"  as  tending  to  infidelity.  In  truth,  these  "trans- 
lations and  paraphrases  "  are  mere  hymns,  for  the  most 
part  founded  on  a  passage  of  Scripture.  Dr.  Watts  com- 
posed a  number  of  them. 


DEFENS]       JPTURAL  HTM       135 

Tn  regard  to  the  extent  to  which  "  the  uae  of  other  pro- 
duct: the  Psalms"  is  carried  in  the  churches  of 
B    bland,  the  following  statement  has  been  handed  to  the 
author  by  two  gentlemen  of  great  intelligence,  and  who 
are  minutely  familiar  from  personal  knowledge,  with  ihe 
-  in  that  country.     It  may  be  added 
thai  ■.'  ft  r  to  the  year  1852.    Probably  Borne 
ohange  maj  have  occurred  since  that  period.     They  say: 
"There  are  in  Scotland  one  thousand  three  hundred  con- 
-  of  the  Established  church,  all  of  which  make 
as  and  paraphrases,  selected  from  the  devo- 
►f  Dr.  Wait-  and  others.     There  are  eight 
hundred                fcions  of  the  Free  church,  all  of  which 
have  the  Bame  practice.     There  are  seven  hundred  a  n- 
greg                   the  United  Presbyterian  church,  and  the 
their  uniform  practice.     All  of  these  do,  how- 
:    l;    tse's  versification  of  the  Psalms. 
Ihei                 no  other  body  of  Presbyterians  than  the 
ntioned,  except  the  Covenanters,  and  these  con- 
fa  ut  thirty  <•<  ngregations,  and  even  these  do  not 
all  adopt  the  exclusive  views."     So  that  the  proportion 

'    use  of  the  Psalms  of  David,  U 
two  thousand  eight  hundred  to  thirty. 

One  of   the  denominati  r  d  to,  is  called   the 

"United  Presbyterian  church  of  Scotland/1  It  was 
formed  by  a  union  of  the  orthodox  part  of  the  Synod  of 
Ulster  which  had  ejected  the  Arians,)  with  th<  S 
lien  church.  In  September,  lv47.  we  were  told  by  the 
editor31  of  the  "Preacher"  of  Pittsburgh,  "that  while 
the  parted  farther  and  farther  from  a  Scripture 

Pbalmody,  the  orthodox  of  the  Synod  of  I  same 

1  more  attaclu-d  and  confined  to  tin  inspired 
r  .  until  the  time  of  their  union  with  the  Secession 
chur 

in,  by  the  Bame  authority:  "It  is  true,  the 

axclusn     use  of  the  1 k  of   Psalme  was  nol 

term  of  d  in  the  United  church;  but  her 

.  It.  Kerr. 


136  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

mony  as  a  church,  was  in  favor  of  the  Psalms  exclusive 
Bp,  the  use  of  paraphrases  being  regarded  then,  as  it  is  yet, 
a  matter  of  toleration." 

But  our  brethren  are  not  always  accurate  in  matters 
of  this  sort.  We  have  had  in  our  possession  for  several 
years,  the  "Hymn  book  of  the  United  Presbyterian 
church,"  issued  in  Edinburgh.  It  consists  of  nearly  five 
hundred  songs  of  praise,  and  bears  on  the  title  page 
that  old  apostolic  proof-text  in  favor  of  New  Testament 
Psalmody,  viz.  "In  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual 
songs,  singing  and  making  melody  in  your  heart." 
Ephesians  5  :  19.  One  hundred  and  thirty-five  of  these 
hymns  are  the  same  with  those  in  our  Presbyterian  sys- 
tem. About  seventy  are  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Watts; 
and  although  this  church  retains  Rouse,  she  has  para- 
phrased one  hundred  and  sixty-five  passages  of  the  old 
Psalms  among  her  hymns  !  Could  her  testimony  have 
been  stronger  in  favor  of  the  necessity  of  New  Testa- 
ment improvements  in  the  matter  of  praise  ?  Could  it 
have  been  stronger  against  "the  Psalms  exclusively?" 
And  the  worst  feature  of  the  thing  is,  these  children  of 
the  land  of  orthodoxy  and  Bible  truth,  though  retaining 
the  "  paraphrase  of  Rouse,"  have  repeated  in  the  form 
of  very  loose  paraphrase,  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  se- 
lections from  the  old  Psalms  :  for  what  purpose  ?  Why 
do  they  give  a  second  time  these  portions  of  the  "  in- 
spired songs?"  Why  obliterate  the  order  and  connection 
in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  placed  them?  Our  exclusive 
brethren  have  an  answer  ready  at  hand — because,  as  we 
suppose,  like  the  Old  School  church,  these  Scottish  Pres- 
byterians "  think  they  can  write  better  than  David!" 
We  are  certainly  found  in  excellent  company.  The  ex- 
clusive principle,  at  least,  hardly  "finds  rest  for  the  sole 
of  its  foot"  in  the  land  of  Knox,  Hamilton,  Chalmers, 
and  others  of  the  true  Presbyterian  nobility. 

In  this  country,  too,  as  early  as  1787,  in  an  extended 
"overture"  prepared  by  a  committee  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  General  Synod,  (at  Philadelphia,  May  16,)  and 


*.-;:   OF   SCRIPTURAL   hymns.  137 

consisting  of  Dr,  John  Mason,  Robert  Annan  and  John 
Smith,  there  occurred  the  following  utterances  on  this 

ct:  "We  are  extremely  Borry  to  have  observed  a 
disrelish,  in  some  churches,  for  the  Psalms  <>t' 
David  and  other  song*  of  Scripture.  *     *     *  And  we  do 
D-u  mean  to  say,  that  hymn*  of  human  composition  may 
not  '  v  used  in  any  case  whatever/1     This  "over- 

ture "  was  written  bv  Rev.  EL  Annan,4  and  we  have  per- 
sooa]  knowledge  that  in  his  latter  years  he  did  not  hold 
the  exclusive  views. 

Twenty  three  years  later  (1810)  the  same  Synod  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  church  received  "the  report  of  a 
Qommittee,"  in  which  they  speak  of  the  "very  critical 
condition  of  a  large  section  of  their  body,  arising  from 
the  unpopularity  of  our  present  version  (Rouse's)  of  the 
Psalms.  *  *  From  Wa>hington  northward, "  they  say, 
"our  present  version  is  the  chief  obstacle  to  our  prosperi- 
ty, ;,;  *:  and  our  social  praise  languishes  <at<l  is  ready 
*     ;:  Hither  the  rising  generation  will  take  the 

i  in  into  their  own  hands,  and  then  there  will  be  no 
computing  the  disasters  of  Bueh  a  precedent;  or  our 
churehes  will  be  swept  entirely  away"  The  remedy  pro- 
posed by  the  committee,  iras  "an  improved  version  of 
scriptural  Psalmody."  Observe,  they  do  not  say,  "  an 
improved  version  of  David's  Psalms,"  but  "of  scriptural 

mody  " — probably  designing  to  include  the  other 
gs  and  suitable  parts  of  Scripture.      These  dissatis- 
factions have  never  entirely  ceased  in  that  denomination, 
and  no  doubt  formed  one  of  the  reasons  why  so  many  of 
her  ministers  and   members  have  Bought  refuse  in  the 

DO  of  the  Presbyterian  church.      There  was  no  action 

*  Thii  wu  the  honored  fath<  r  r    end  as  hit  name  is  of- 

..  ire  take  pleasure  in  quoting  from 

:    M.  Mason  the  I  Mowing  extract  from  ■  letter  by  I>r. 

K.  D  rring  to  the  b  the 

Ass"-  ted  and  the  G  :  u  It  Li  il pinion  "f 

Mr.  A 

the  union)  ought  to  be 
brou  j 


138  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

on  the  above  report  to  the  Synod,  though  the  subject  ori- 
ginated  in  a  petition  from  the  people,  and  was  from  highly 
respectable  sources.  It  is  well  known,  however,  that 
some  years  later,  the  majority  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  united  with  the  Presbyterian  body,  thus  fulfilling 
the  earnest  desire  of  one  who  has  always  been  viewed  as 
a  chief  instrument  in  originating  the  Associate  Reformed 
church.  * 

The  history  of  our  own  times  is  equally  instructive. 
In  1852  the  late  venerable  Dr.  M' Master  published  the 
fourth  edition  of  his  u  Apology  for  the  book  of  Psalms/' 
He  was  an  honored  and  influential  minister  of  the  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  body,  or  Covenanters.  Though  he 
and  his  brethren  had,  as  a  matter  of  expediency,  pro- 
hibited by  express  rule  the  use  in  their  churches  of  any 
but  the  "Psalms  of  David,"  he  uttered  at  the  close  of  his 
book,  and  near  the  close  of  his  life,  the  following  senti- 
ments : — "  If  the  church  authorize  it,  collect  from  the 
books  of  inspiration  at  large,  a  volume  or  volumes  of 
poetic  matter,  in  prose  or  verse,  leaving  her  ministers 
and  people  to  use  or  not  to  use  it." 

Again,  says  Dr.  M1  Master,  "  When  the  sources  of  in- 
spired poetry  are  exhausted  *  *  *  *  let  the  church 
in  council,  endeavor  to  ascertain  what  may  be  necessary, 
safe,  or  advisable  to  do,"  &c.  Dr.  M' Master  wished  to 
retain  a  version  of  the  Psalms,  but  had  no  objection  to 
other  songs  of  praise. 

These  are  certainly  liberal  sentiments — worthy  of  the 
head  and  heart  of  their  author.  And  we  have  reason  to 
know  that  they  still  express  the  views  of  a  large  number, 
perhaps  all,  of  the  (New  School)  ministers  and  mem- 
bership of  that  body.  The}7  show  that  the  idea  of  the 
exclusive  use  of  David's  Psalms  has  but  feeble  hold  upon 
the  understanding  and  hearts  of  that  respected  denomi- 
nation. 

We  are  glad  to  be  able  to  state  further,  that  the  discus- 
sions of  some  years  past  appear  to  have  had  a  favorable 
influence  upon  the  minds  of  prominent  ministers  of  the 


DE]  BCRIPTUEA1    1IYM  139 

Ase  tc  R  formed  church,  now  united  with  the  See** 
ders.     Some  j  .  the  two  brethren  of  that  body 

who  have  written  most  on  the  rabject,  assumed  imeh  po- 
s i 1 1 ■  a  — "It  is  the  will  of  God  that  the  songs 

I  in  the  book  of  Psalms  be  song  fan  his  worship 
to  the  end  of  time,  and  we  have  no  authority  to  use  any 
"An  1  tb  >se  who  depart  from  this  appointm 

\A\  corrupting  one  of  the  most  interesting  and 
important  ordinances  of  God."  f  But  in  subsequent 
publications  the  tone  of  these  assumptions  appears  much 
Bubdui  1.      We  then  are  told  that  if  the  principle  of    in- 

)fahnodv  exclusively  be  held,  "the  difference  of 
opinion  about  the  use  of  any  tony  of  praise  contained  in 
the  Bible"  is  "not  of  such  a  nature  as  should  disturb 
the  peaee  of  the  church."  £  Again,  we  are  told,  "the 
difference  (between  the  churches  of  Scotland  and  the  A  — 
rmed  church)  is  comparatively  small,  and 
Would  never  in  all  probability  have  disturbed  the  peace 
of  the  church."  ',  Thus  observe  the  change  of  sentiment 
in  a  few  years.  In  the  former  case  it  reads,  the  use  of 
any  but  David's  Psalms  "seriously  corrupts  one  of  the 
in  at  im]  riant  ordinances  of  God;"  but  in  the  latter 
"  //'■  BO    SMALL    AS    NOT    TO    DISTURB   THE 

PEACE  Of  the  CHURCH."  We  are  happy  to  hail  this 
shitting  of  original  positions,  and  apparent  movement 
toward  the  large  scriptural  ground  of  the  Presbyterian 
church.  §  In  fact  our  brother  of  the  "Preacher"  here  gives 
up  '  debatable  ground  in  regard  to  evangelical 

hymn-  of  "human  composition."   The  five  such  hymns,  no 

.  the  sixty-five  "paraphrases"  sung  by  the  Free 
and  Established  churches  of  Scotland,  are  included  in  his 

*  Dr.  Precalj,  noted  bj  Ralftoi^  p.  46. 

■f  P-  I  'r.  K'/rr,  June  9,  I  - 

mbtr,  1852. 

I>»\   tho  orpin   of    th- 
M.in-h,  1854):    "  Nor  do  »r« 
I  using  than  in  the 
trort k 


140  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

admission  as  stated  above.  The  principle,  of  course,  is 
the  same  as  though  they  were  five  or  fifty  times  that 
number.  Yet  he  says,  "  the  difference  is  comparatively 
small" — "  should  not  disturb  the  peace  of  the  church." 
The  first  lines  of  these  five  Scottish  hymns  are  as  fol- 
lows : 

When  all  thy  mercies,  0  my  God  ! 

The  spacious  firmament  on  high. 

When  rising  from  the  bed  of  death. 

Blessed  morning  !  whose  first  dawning  rays. 

The  hour  of  my  departure  's  come. 

The  first  three  are  from  the  pen  of  Addison,  and  one 
of  the  others,  we  believe,  from  Dr.  Watts.  They  are,  in 
the  broadest  sense,  "  mere  human  compositions." 

It  would  appear  then  from  these  concessions,  that  whilst 
one  of  these  brethren  will  "not  disturb  the  peace  of  the 
church"  by  opposing  the  use  of  any  song  of  praise  con- 
tained in  the  Bible  ;"  the  other,  Rev.  Dr.  Kerr,  editor  of 
the  "  Preacher,"  goes  much  farther  than  "the  songs  of  the 
Bible."  He  pleads  for  peace  in  regard  to  all  such  evan- 
gelical "human  compositions"  as  the  forementioned,  by 
Addison  and  Dr.  Watts.  "  The  difference"  he  says, 
"is  comparatively  small,  and  should  not  disturb  the 
peace  of  the  church."  He  will  never  quarrel  with  the 
Scottish  churches  for  singing  any  such  hymns  of  an  evan- 
gelical character.  They  are  small  matters,  not  worth 
contending  about  over  there  in  the  land  of  Knox.  But 
if  this  be  so,  why  does  he  denounce  these  "  human  com- 
positions" so  bitterly,  when  they  are  found  in  our  collec- 
tion ?  We  cannot  search  the  heart  for  all  the  reasons 
which  he  and  his  brethren  have  for  their  great  partiality 
toward  hymn-singing  Scotland.  The  avowed  reason, 
however,  we  understand  to  be  this,  that  we  hymn-singing 
Americans  "  impiously  reject  the  songs  which  God  has 
given"  and  substitute  Dr.  Watts'  productions  in  their 
place — or,  in  plainer  language,  we  sing  Watts'  "  para- 
phrase" instead  of  "  Rouse's  paraphrase."  In  other 
words,  we  Presbyterians  treat  u  the  Psalms"  so  badly, 


DEFENSE   OF   SCRIPTURAL   HYMN-.  141 

that  tlit1  very  hymns  which  are  quite  tolerable  in  Scotland, 

must  bi   resisted  on  this  ride  of  the  great  water. 

The  consistency  of  this  leniency  toward  Scottish  hymns 
of  "toere  human  composition,"  with  other  oft  ex] 

sentiments   of  Dr.  K.    and   his   brethren,  is  a  matter  of 
minor  conoern.     But  Groin  the  foregoing  induction,  we 

feel  authorized  to   put   on  distinct   record  the   following 
litiona  as  conceded  by  these  brethren,  the  first  by 
Dr.  P.,  the  aeoond  by  Dr.  EL,  viz. : 

I.  The  use  in  Divine  worship  of  any  song  of  praise 
Contained  in  any  part  of  the  Bible,  should  not  disturb 
the  peace  of  the  church,  provided  the  principle  of  u  in- 
spired Psalmody"  be  preserved. 

II.  The  use  of  hymns  of  human  composition,  in  the 
circumstances  of  the  Presbyterian  churches  of  Scotland, 
should  not  disturb  the  peace  of  the  church. 

If,  then,  we  have  rightly  understood  the  views  of  the 
brethren  referred  to,  Dr.  Pressly  is  ready  to  tolerate  any 
of  our  hymns,  provided  it  is  "a  song  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,"  and  we  hold  his  principle  of  u  inspired  Psal- 

And  Dr.  Kerr  will  not  disturb  th 
warring  against  any  of  our  hymns,  even  though  it  be 
like  the  hymns  of  the  Free  church  of  Scotland,  u 
human  composition,"  proirid  d  we  consent  to  sing 
"  Rouse's  paraphrase"  along  with  the  hymns.  These  are 
legitimate  and  gratifying  inferences  from  the  doctrines 
1  by  these  brethren.  On  the  conditions  stated, 
the  difference  becomes  "  comparatively  small,"  and  should 
make  no  disturbance  in  the  church.  We  would  thus 
place  in  the  same  position  with  the  churches  of 

Scotland,  whose  hymns  of  "mere  human  composure," 
ling  to  Dr.  Kerr,  are  quite  tolerable,  certainly  not 
w«»rth  contending  about!     If  we  will  only  use   B 

other  "inspired  Psalmody,"  our  u  hymns  of  human  oom- 

n"  will  then  become  current  with  Dr.  K.  and  his 

brethren  equally   with    the   w  m<  PS    human  feffusion 

the  churchy-       S    fond!     We  are  glad  to  find  that  our 


142  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

brethren  have  become  so  very  tolerant  toward  such  "  se- 
rious corruptions  of  Divine  worship. " 

In  the  light  of  this  brief  history,  we  open  the  volume 
which  contains  the  hymns  used  in  the  Old  School  Presby- 
terian church.  And  here  the  first  thing  that  strikes  us  is, 
how  large  a  proportion  of  these  hymns  are  versified  "  songs 
of  praise  contained  in  the  Bible. "  Of  course,  it  follows, 
according  to  the  judgment  of  one  of  these  brethren, 
that  "a  difference  of  opinion"  about  the  use  of  this 
whole  class  should  not  disturb  the  peace  of  the  church, 
provided  we  will  sing  Rouse's  paraphrase,  or  other  equally 
inspired  system.  Take  the  very  first  hymn  in  the  order 
of  Dr.  Watts.  It  is  a  paraphrase  of  Revelation  5  :  6-12. 
"We  have  room  for  only  a  few  verses : 

And  the  four  beasts  and  four  Let  elders  -worship  at  h?s  feet, 

and  twenty  elders  fell  down  be-  The  church  adore  around, 

fore  the  Lamb,  having  ever}'  one  With  vials  full  of  odors  sweet, 

of  them  harps,  golden  vials  full  And  harps  of  sweeter  sound. 
of  odors. 

And  they  sung  a  new  song,  jSTow  to  the  Lamb  that  once  was 
*  *  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was         slain, 

slain  to  receive  power,  and  riches,  Be  endless  blessings  paid  ; 

and  wisdom,  and  strength,  and  Salvation,  glory,  joy  remain 

honor,  and  glory,  and  blessing.  For  ever  on  thy  head. 

Thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  re-     Thou  hast  redeemed  our  souls  with 
deemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood,         blood, 
<fcc.  Hast  set  the  prisoners  free, 

Hast  made    us   kings    and   priests 

to  God, 
And  we  shall  reign  with  thee. 

The  first  book  of  Dr.  Watts  contains  one  hundred  and 
fifty  of  these  paraphrases  of  Scripture,  which  to  a  very 
large  extent  are  as  near  to  the  original  text  as  many 
portions  of  the  paraphrases  of  Rouse.  They  are  not  all 
'•  songs  of  praise,"  but  many  of  them  are,  nor  should 
they  be  allowed  to  "disturb  the  peace  of  the  church."  In 
speaking  of  these  paraphrases  of  his  first  book,  Dr. 
Watts  says,  "I  have  borrowed  the  sense  and  much  of  the 
form  of  the  song  from  particular  portions  of  Scripture, 


DEFENSE       JPTURAL  HYMNS.     143 

an  1  have  paraphraa  f  the  doxologies  in  the  New 

rtamenl  and  many  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  also, 
that  ha  :'  rencetothe  times  of  the  Messiah." 

Of  ;  ne  hundred  and  seventy  i 

Dr   W.  says,  u  I  might  haye  brought  some  text  (of  Scrip- 
I  applied  it  to  the  margin  of  eveiy  verse,  it'  this 
metbod  had  been  as  useful  as  it   was  easy."     Still  he 
candidly  admits  that   the  form  of  these  hymns  of  book 
ad,    is    of    "mere    human    composure j"    meaning 
that  the  order  and  connection  of  the  song  are  not  found 
in  the  Bible.     Here,  also,  we  have  the  judgment  of  ]>r. 
K.    in   our  favor.      These  hymns   are,    to   say  the   v«ry 
-\  not  more  entirely  "  human  compositions'"  than  those 
adopted  by  the  Free  and  Established  churches  of  Soot- 
land.     Yet   of  these  latter   Dr.  K.  says,    "  their  use  in 
that  country  should  not  disturb  the  peace  of  the  church. " 
And  by  parity  of  reasoning  in  the  Presbyterian  church 
liis  country,  they  ought  not  to  be,  on  one   condition, 
intention  or  disturbance  of  the  peace.     At 
identical  "human  compositions"  of 
Dr.  Watts,  are  used  by  those  Scottish  churches,  and  Dr. 
K.  assures  us  they  "ought  not  to  disturb  the  peace/1 

I ;   or  at  least  some  equally 
inspired  n. 

The  sain  is  of  course  to  be  extended  to  the 

third  book  of  Dr.   Watts'   hymns.     It  consists  of  forty- 
five   pieces,   of  which  the  author  says,  "some  are  para- 
ripture."     They  are  intended  especially  to 
oration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.      Not  a 
;ry   hymn   can   be  found   in   the  whole  three  books, 
that  "a  mere  human  composition"  than  a 

number  of  those   in  the  Scottish  collection,  and  which 

bland  no  sufficient  cause  for 
or  breach  of  the  \ 

re,  that  the  t  '.  the  great 

source  of  Psalmody,  accord- 

ing to  Dr,  EL,  is  this  :  We  Presbyterians  "impiously  re- 
ject the  Psalms  which  God  has  given  to  be  sung."     But 


144  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

if  this  a  correct  statement?     We  deny  it  in  toto,  for  the 
following  reasons : 

1.  Our  Supreme  Judicatory  has  expressly  authorized 
the  Psalms  in  "  Rouse's  paraphrase"  to  be  sung  in  all 
our  churches.  See  the  Act  quoted  in  a  former  Letter. 
Is  this  the  same  as  impiously  rejecting  them  ? 

2.  Our  church,  after  careful  revision  and  amendments 
made  by  the  General  Assembly,  has  also  authorized  the 
use  of  the  Psalms  in  Dr.  Watts'  "  paraphrase ;"  and 
besides,  she  has  recently  printed  in  connection  with  it, 
fifty  selections  from  Rouse.  Is  this  rejecting  "  the 
Psalms  ?  " 

3.  All  our  churches  are  at  perfect  liberty  to  use  one 
or  the  other  of  these  versifications  at  their  pleasure.  If 
every  congregation  in  our  connection  were  immediately 
to  reject  every  thing  but  Rouse,  they  would  only  .do 
what  they  are  authorized  to  do  by  our  highest  ecclesias- 
tical court. 

And  now,  in  the  name  of  peace,  how  is  this  the  same 
as  "impiously  rejecting  the  Psalms  V*  True,  our  con- 
gregations generally,  of  the  two  authorized  "para- 
phrases," prefer  Watts  to  Rouse — but  even  if  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  instead  of  authorizing  had  expressly  for- 
bidden Rouse's  paraphrase,  can  any  person  really  per- 
suade himself  that  this  would  be  the  same  as  "  impiously 
rejecting  the  Psalms  which  God  has  given?"  But 
they  have  not  forbidden  even  that  paraphrase,  but 
given  it  their  sanction. 

The  same  reasoning  applies  to  all  the  other  hymns 
in  the  Presbyterian  collection,  which  are  by  other  au- 
thors than  Dr.  W.  The  great  mass  of  the  verses  are  merely 
expanded  texts  of  God's  blessed  Word.  For  example, 
Hymn  232  : 

Stretched  on  the  cross  the  Saviour  dies,  Matthew  27 :  35. 

Hark  !  his  expiring  groans  arise ,*  Matthew  27 :  46. 

See  how  the  sacred  crimson  tide  Hebrews  9  :  14. 

Flo\rs  from  his  hands,  his  feet,  his  side.  John  19  :  34. 

Whether    such    compositions  as    this    deserve  to  be 


DSPBITSS   01   SCRIPTURAL   HYMNS.  146 

3  u  mere  human  inventions/'  is  a  question 
lifficult  to  decide. 
We  have  already  shown  that  there  ifl  not  a  solitary  in- 
the  \ m  T.  stamenl  of  a  Psalm  of  David  1  • 
On  the  contrary,  the  apostles  and  brethren  a 
the  book  of  Psalms  in  quite  another  manner,  in  the 

i  in  which  alone  they  appear  to  have  employed 

them   in  social  praise.     The  first  case  is  Luke  1!)  :  38. 

disciples  assumed  part  of  a  verse  from  Psalm  118, 

bat  Bung  ir  with  alterations   to  adapt   it  to  their  circiui:- 

The  otherexample  is  in  Acts  4  :  24,  where  the 

b<  ginning  of  the  2d  Psalm  is  sung  by  Peter,  John,  and 

r  company.     You  find  there  an  addition  of  praise  in 

the  beginning — then  a  narration  of  what  David  spoke — 

then  an  application  to  Herod,  Pontius  Pilate,  &c. — then 

they  enlarge  the  matter  of  fact  by  considering  the  hand 

of  God  in  it,  and  the  song  concludes  with  the  breathing 

of  their  de-ires  toward  God  for  mercies  most  precisely 

suited  to  their  day  and  duty  ;  and  having  sung,  they  went 

to  prayer,  and  then  preached  with  amazing  success. 

We  have  lure  an  inspired  example  of  that  identical 
Use  of  the  Psalms  and  of  other  inspired  matter,  which  our 
church  sanctions.  It  is  an  apostolic  hymn,  which  no- 
where appears  in  David,  and  affords  abundant  warrant 
from  "  the  Author  of  light  and  wisdom"  for  the  hymns 
of  the  Presbyterian  church.  The  apostles  seem  to  have 
known  nothing  of  the  "  Divine  appointment"  of  "the 
fealmist  of  Israel,"  to  that  exclusive  authority  for 
the  church  in  all  ages. 

itolic  example  of  grouping  together  parts  of 
Psalms  with  other  inspired  matter,  is  the  v< 
ctjpfc  on   which   most  of  our  hymns  are  arranged.     Our 
thren  practice  the  same  thing  in  preaching  the  gosj 
rending  the   Scriptures,    "explaining  the  Psalms," 
an  1  in  prayer.     It  is  by  their  own  admission,  perfectly 
right  in  every  other  part  of  worship.     How,  then,  d<    - 
•ti  g  impii  'j  in  the  matter  of  praise  '.;     I 
13 


146  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

can  the  addition  of  a  tune  to  a  brief  "explanation"  of 
a  Psdin,  render  it  a  solemn  mockery  of  God  ? 

In  strong  corroboration  of  these  views,  the  visions  of 
the  book  of  Revelation  distinctly  point  out  the  very  style, 
sentiment  and  manner  of  the  praises  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment church.  Take  for  example,  Revelation  5 :  9-14» 
Our  soundest  commentators  inform  us  that  John's  visions 
in  "  heaven"  shadowed  forth  the  visible  church  on  earth. 
Thus  Dr.  Scott,  "These  adoring  praises  were  rendered  by 
the  representatives  of  the  church."  "  Thus  the  whole 
church,  by  its  representatives,  fell  down  and  worshiped." 
11  These  (especially  the  four  and  twenty  elders)  are  gene- 
rally allowed  to  be  the  emblematic  representatives  of  the 
whole  church  of  God."  They  were  engaged  in  worship- 
ing God  and  the  Lamb.  What  do  they  sing?  A  Psalm 
of  David?  No  such  thins;.  "Worthy  is  the  Lamb 
that  was  slain."  See  the  whole  hymn  in  Revelation 
5  :  9-14.  Several  similar  songs  are  found  in  the  same 
book.  If  there  were  no  other  evidence  in  favor  of  our 
New  Testament  hymns,  this  would  be  conclusive.  We 
cannot  be  wrong  in  singing  the  very  hymns  which  the 
Spirit  of  prophecy  dictated  to  "  the  beloved  disciple,"  as 
the  subject  matter  of  the  exalted  praises  of  God's  people 
in  all  future  ages ;  and  especially  since  these  hymns 
were  communicated  as  the  very  essence  and  joy  of  the 
worship  that  employs  the  blest  voices  of  redeemed  spirits 
in  the  presence  of  God.*  Men  may  denounce  such 
songs  as  "  corruptions,"  but  they  are  not  so  esteemed  in 
the  world  of  glory. 

*  "  Though  heavenis  the  scene  of  these  visions,  yet  *  *  *  *  •  the 
state  of  the  church  on. earth  is  throughout  particularly  adverted  to." 
— Scott. 


HISTOBTOAft   AKul'Mi:.\T  run  hymns.        147 


LETTER    XII. 

ffl    in    thk   CHUBCB — 9LABC1    at    kcitis.  5  :  19  ; 
:     In —  A.UTHORITT    Of    KALPH    KIOK1NK     in  M7B 

s  —  iuimitiyk    CHUBCHj    iir.i:    Q8AG1  — 
"BOOK     Of     PSALMS     PKKFBCT" — "no     COMMAND 
B  kISl  " — "  BBTTIHa     AUDI      i   I 
WOBD  " — "  LMADti 

*•  i  tO    SCHISM 

AC. 

My  Dear  Sir  : — The  history  of  the  early  use  of  hymns, 
viz.  BongB  of  praise  not  found  in  the  book  of  Psalms, 
affords  s<-me  instructive  lessons. 

Eyen  in  the  inspired  record  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  v. 
find  the  author  of  the  gospel  by  Mark  employing  a  Ghreek 

ringing  of  the  Saviour  and  hisdisoi] 
at  tfa  r  and  the  L      l's  8  ipper,  which  word,  /. 

or  u9ung  a  hymn"  is  not  the 

nmon  one  to  indicate  the  Psalms.      In  every  place  but 

N   w  Testament  which  refers  beyond  all  doubt 

to  M  David's  Psalms,"  the  word  isjMa&not,  nut  hutnm 

the  oorresponding  verb.     If,  as  is  strenuously  maintained 

ur  brethren,  the  Saviour  selected  Psalms  113—118 

for  this   hymn,*  it  would  have  been  more  natural  for 

k    to  employ   the   usual   term   to   indicate   that   the 

Psalms  were  sung.     We  admit,  however,  that  JosephuS, 

the  Jewish  historian,   applies  the   terms   "hymns  and 

•  1  the  Bible  Psalms.    Antiquities  7  :  12,  .*].    And 

it   h  said  that  tic  the  time  of  the  Advent  of 

ling  the  great  Hallel  (Psalms 

113*118,    at  the  celebration  of  the  Passover.      If  this 

on  on  the  original  appoint- 

.*,  which  d<»><  not  include  ringing.     Bee  the  record, 

12:1-28,     Besides,  the  Hallel  (or  Psalms  118- 

*  Th  11. 'J  and  11-4  before 

■r  it. 


148  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

118,)  was  not  composed  for  several  hundred  years  after- 
ward. 

The  question,  however,  whether  the  Lord  Jesus  sung  a 
part  of  the  book  of  Psalms  in  connection  with  the  Pass- 
over, is  of  very  small  importance  in  this  discussion. 
Admitting  that  he  sung  the  Hallel — then  if  we  were  re- 
quired to  observe  the  Jewish  Passover,  we  should  feel 
bound  to  copy  his  example,  even  in  this  particular,  (as  in 
circumcision,)  in  order,  like  him,  "to  fulfill  all  righteous- 
ness." But  how  does  such  an  example  decide  for  or 
against  the  dogma,  which  affirms  the  Hebrew  Psalm  book 
to  be  the  only  and  universal  Psalmody  of  all  ages  ?  If 
Christ  and  his  disciples  sung  a  part  of  the  Psalms,  they 
did  only  what  every  sound  Presbyterian  joyfully  and 
thankfully  approves  and  copies  —  a  privilege  which  he 
very  highly  appreciates.  But  to  sing  any  other  portion 
of  the  holy  oracles — is  that  the  same  as  "  offering  strange 
fire  V}     There  is  the  true  point  in  debate. 

The  term  humnos,  hymn,  is  found  only  twice  in  the 
New  Testament,  viz.  in  those  well  contested  passages, 
Ephesians  5  :  19,  and  Colossians  3  :  16  :  "  Speaking  to 
yourselves  in  Psalms,  hymns,  humnois,  and  spiritual 
songs."  It  suits  the  exclusive  theory  of  our  brethren, 
to  affirm  that  these  three  terms  in  both  passages,  "proba- 
bly indicate  sacred  songs  which  are  substantially  the 
same;"*  that  is,  they  all  mean  the  Psalms  of  David. 
But  here  the  best  authorities  are  against  them.  Henry 
says:  "By  Psalms  may  be  meant  David's  Psalms,  or 
such  composures  as  were  fitly  sung  with  musical  instru- 
ments. By  hymns,  such  others  as  were  confined  to  mat- 
ter of  praise,  as  those  of  Zacharias,  Simeon,"  &c.  Dod- 
dridge adds :  "  I  see  not  the  authority  for  supposing  all 
these  words  to  refer  to  David's  poetical  pieces,"  &c.  f 
Dr.  Scott  says  the  words  mean,  "  the  Psalms  and  hymns 
of  the  sacred  Scriptures  and  such  spiritual  songs  as  pious 
men  composed  on  the  peculiar  subjects  of  the  gospel." 

*  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  140. 

f  See  also  Macknigkt  ou  the  Epistles. 


iai  AJwnjMBNi  roB  HYMNS.       149 

A_  -  Is  to  mean,  u  hymns  and 

.  and  poena  of  every  kind  which 
i  to  prepare  then  Cm  the  worship  of  heaven  : 
an  i  let  them  use  tin  se  hymns  and  songs  constantly,  not 
sessions  alone,  but  in  social  meetings  also/' 
The  learned  editor  of  the  Comprehensive  Oommen- 
.    Dr.  Jenks,  Bays:  "Pealmoi,  not  simply  David's, 
then  the  article  would  have  been  used,  hoi  PealmoL 
The  m  inly  comprehended  other  compositions. " 

I'      B    Ige,  in  his  Commentary  on  Ephesiaiis,  takes  the 
large  view,  and  adds  as  one  of  the  scriptural  mean- 
ings of  psahnoe,  Psalm:  M  Any  sacred  poem  formed  on 
I  >il  Testament   Psalms,  as  in  1  Corinthians  14  :  26, 
i  appears  to  mean  such  a  somj  given  !>'/  in- 
,  and  not  one  of  the  Psalms  of  David."     Sooh 
is  the  unanimous  testimony  of  these  commentators:  they 
In  direct  opposition  to  the  view  held  by  these  breth- 
.   viz.   that    by   u  Psalms,   hymns  and   songs,"  Paul 
meant  exclusively  the  book  of  Psalms. 

lint   it  is  replied  that  the  churches  of  Ephesus  and 
tad  in  their  possession  the  Psalms  of  David,  and 
had  no  other — therefore  they  would  most  certainly 
understand  the  apostle  as  referring  to  the  book  of  Psalms 
alone.     But  it  seems  to  be  forgotten  that  those  churches 
recently  formed  amid  a  heathen  population  and  in 
then   cities  —  bo«>ks   were   scarce,  and  having  to  be 
ied  by  the  hand  on  wax,  lead,  parchment  or  similar 
rials,  were  extremely  expensive;   and  the  ability  to 
-  by  no  me  B  tides,  when  the  apos- 

ebokes  the  Corinthians  as  follows :  " Every  one  of 
balm" — the  common  interpretation  is,  that 
the  fruits  of  the  gifts  of  the   Holy 
red  opon  the  membership  of  the  Corin- 
thian church.*    Then  why  might  not  the  same  Divine 
influence   have   beea   found  at   Ephesus   and   C 

r  to  this  class  of   Pi 

: 
OOmuieritarors  of 


150  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

well  as  to  those  of  David  ?  In  view  of  the  whole  argu 
merit,  it  appears  most  evident,  as  Dr.  Hodge  remarks, 
"that  not  only  Psalms,  but  hymns  as  distinct  composi- 
tions, also  were  employed."  As  to  the  Septuagint  use 
of  the  term,  when  Isaiah  would  predict  the  glorious  tri- 
umphs of  the  gospel,  he  exclaims — "  Sing  unto  the  Lord 
a  new  song  (humnon  or  hymn),  and  his  praise  from  the 
ends  of  the  earth."  Chapter  42  :  10.  The  Greek  is  very 
expressive — u  Hymn  unto  the  Lord  a  new  hymn."  The 
hymn  immediately  follows,  and  though  not  found  in  "the 
book  of  Psalms,"  Isaiah  exhorts  to  sing  it,  including,  of 
course,  all  similar  hymns ;  an  exhortation  or  command 
just  as  binding  upon  the  New  Testament  church  as  any 
requirement  to  "sing  Psalms"  which  is  found  in  the 
book  of  that  name. 

But  in  ascertaining  the  correct  meaning  of  these  two 
celebrated  texts,  (Ephesians  5  :  19 ;  Colossians  3  :  16,) 
we  have  decidedly  in  our  favor  no  less  a  personage  than 
the  distinguished  patriarch  of  the  Associate  or  Seceder 
Presbytery  of  Scotland,  Ralph  Erskine.  This  may  seem 
strange,  but  it  is  not  the  less  true.  In  the  preface  to  his 
poetical  "paraphrase"  upon  the  "Song  of  Solomon,"  af- 
ter speaking  of  the  "  Song  "  as  full  of  Christ,  he  says  : 
"I  judge  that  a  song  upon  this  subject  is  not  unseasona- 
ble, when  the  songs  of  the  temple  (the  church)  are  like 
to  be  turned  into  bowlings,  &c.  How  desirable,"  he  adds, 
"that  this  little  book  might  help  her  to  sing  away  her  sor- 
rows, *  *  to  drive  away  the  night  of  trouble  with  songs 
of  praise,"  &c.  "We  have  a  Divine  precept/'  he 
continues,  "perhaps  too  much  forgotten  and  neglected, 
in  Ephesians  5  :  18,  19,  and  Colossians  3  :  16."  "Like- 
wise an  express  Divine  appointment  in  Psalm  46  :  6,  7, 
how  we  are  to  sing,"  &c.  "Now  this  sacred  Song  of 
Solomon  being  very  mysterious,  that  you  may  be  the 
more  able  to  sing  it  over  with  understanding,  I  have  en- 
deavored to  lay  open  the  mysteries, "  Sec.  He  then  states 
that  he  "had  cast  his  paraphrase  in  the  mould  of  common 
metre  "  for  the  purpose  of  singing. 


HISTORICAL   ABGUHEHT   FOR   HYMNS.         161 

II  re,  then,  it  will  be  seen  thai  Ralph  Erskine  interprets 
Paul's  "  Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,"  a-  a   1>i- 
vink  precept  t<>  ting  the  "Song of  Solomon."    And  his 
mmendation  of  the  u  Song  "  is  not  only  for  private  de- 
votion, but  as  he  says,  Hto  help  L>  r  (the  church  I  to   ting 

row$  with  these  songs  of  praise/1     Surely 

Ralph  Brakine  had  not  before  his  eyes  the  fear  of  "the, 

f  Nadab  and   Abihu  !"     The  truth  is,  he  had  no 

Psalmody  to  warp  his  judgment,  and 

therefore  he  uttered  the  sentiments  of  piety  and  good 
!f  is  certainly  worthy  <>f  distinct  record,  that  a 
man  "whose  name,"  as  Dr.  Beveridge  affirms,  k,doorves 
to  be  held  in  everlasting  remembrance/1  should  have  thus 
discovered  in  these  oft  disputed  texts,  "a  Divine  pre- 
cept  "  to  sing  other  productions  than  the  one  hundred  and 
fifty  Psalms — and  that,  too,  at  the  very  period  when,  as  he 
says,  4%  the  songs  of  the  church  (Rouse)  were  turned  into 
howlii 

But  perhaps  it  will  he  replied,  that  Erskine  refers  only 

to  nn  "inspired  song/1  and  therefore,  he  does  not  approve 

"human  composition."    But  this  i-  a  mistake.     He  calls 

his  poetical   work,    "a  paraphrase,  or  large  explicatory 

poem.91     Tli.'  first  line  of  the  "  Song,"  viz.  its  naked  ti- 

V> ,  he  expands  into  four  stanzas  of  four  lines  each,  and 

of  the  rest.     The  line,  verse  4,  u  Draw  me;  we  will 

run  after  thee  "  —  is  paraphrased  into  twelve  lines.     Kr- 

skine'fl  paraphrase  is  no  more  an  inspired  song  than  the 

Uion  of  the  Psalm  "  by  the  Associate  Reformed 

minister.      Yet  this  distinguished  father  and  founder  of 

the  Associate  or  Seceder  body,  finds  "a  I  My  ink  pre- 

_-    this    li  human   production  fi    in    the 

•   Paul,  Ephesiana  5  :  lv.  19,  and  Colossians  3  : 

16.      Thus  the  evidence  is  full  and  clear,  that   the   intcr- 

pretation  which  makes  u  Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual 

cclusively  to  the  Psalms  of  David,  is  a 

_  4  uj.  t.»  suit  a  particular  purpose.      u  The 

•  r  of  the  thought/' 

I  the  primitive  church,  i.  e.,  the  church  in  the  ages 


152  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

immediately  succeeding  the  apostles,  was  not  restricted  tc 
the  hook  of  Psalms  as  their  only  Psalmody,  is  so  clearly 
demonstrated  by  history  as  to  admit  of  no  doubt.  Thus 
the  celebrated  Neander  writes  as  follows  :  "  Singing  also 
passed  from  the  Jewish  service  into  that  of  the  Christian 
church.  St.  Paul  exhorts  the  early  Christians  to  sing 
spiritual  songs.  What  was  used  for  this  purpose  were 
partly  the  Psalms  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  partly  songs 
composed  with  this  very  object :  especially  songs  of  praise 
and  thanks  to  God  and  Christ,  and  these  we  know  Pliny 
found  to  be  customary  among  the  Christians.  In  the 
controversies  with  the  Unitarians,  about  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  and  the  beginning  of  the  third,  the 
hymns  in  which,  from  early  times,  Christ  had  been  hon- 
ored as  God,  were  appealed  to." 
This  is  clear  and  decisive  : 

1.  The  praises  of  the  church  were  offered  in  part,  in 
the  language  of  the  Psalms  of  David. 

2.  They  were  offered  also  in  songs  (or  hymns)  com- 
posed with  this  very  object. 

3.  These  songs  of  praise  to  God  and  Christ,  were  af- 
terward quoted,  in  controversy  with  Unitarians.  The 
Christians  of  the  close  of  the  second  and  beginning  of 
the  third  centuries,  cited  them  as  hymns  to  Christ  as 
Gocl,  and  as  the  testimony  of  u  early  times  to  his  divin- 
ity." It  is  true,  the  learned  Spanheim  takes  a  different 
view.  He  says,  in  speaking  of  the  fourth  century: 
u  That  besides  hymns  and  songs  and  private  Psalms,  of 
which  there  was  a  great  number  in  their  solemn  assem- 
blies, the  Psalm  book  of  David  was  brought  into  the  west- 
ern church  in  this  age." 

With  this  testimony  agrees  that  of  the  learned  and 
generally  accurate  \Mosheim.  In  his  account  of  the  wor- 
ship of  the  fourth  century,  he  says  :  "  The  Psalms  of 
David  were  now  received  among  the  public  hymns  that 
were  sung  as  a  part  of  Divine  service."  For  his  author- 
ity, Mosheim  refers  to  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  the  apostoli- 
cal constitutions,  and  Beausobre. 


HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT   FOB   HYME  158 

The  difference  between  these  profound  historians,  it 
will  be  observed,  is  n<>t  as  to  "other  productions"  being 
rang — in  this  they  agree.     The  only  point  of  dispul 
whether  As  /'  David  were  used  in  public  p\ 

prior  to  the  fourth  oentury.     Neander,  and  more  recent* 
ly  Schaffof  this  country,  are  of  opinion  that  p  trtions  of 
Psalms  were  suns  in  the  churches  from  the  berin- 
Spanheim  and  Mosheim  decide,  k*  not  until  the 

rth  c<  ntury."  Por  some  further  references  the  reader 
may  '    r  XIV. 

We  do  n<-t  deem  it  at  all  necessary  to  examine  minute- 
ly certain  historical  citations  made  by  the  friends  of 
Rouse.  Admitting  the  correctness  of  the  quotations 
from  early  writers,  as  they  are  adduced  by  our  breth- 
ren—  what  would  they  prove?  Only  this  —  that  por- 
tions of  "the  book  of  Psalms'1  were  employed  in 
praising  God.     But  no  sound  Presbyterian  regards  this 

I  fact  of  any  importance  in  this  discussion.  We 
rather  rejoice  to  know  that  it  was  so.  We  practice 
the  same  thing.  It  is  the  custom  among  our  churches  to 
sing  parts  of  "the  Psalms  of  David"  every  Lord's  day, 

re  think  it  highly  probable  the  early  Christians  did. 
But  here  is  the  point  to  be  settled  —  "  Did  any  one  of 
those  primitive  Christians  regard  the  book  of  Psalms  as 
the  only,  universal  and  pi  rpetual  Psalmody  of  the  church 
for  all  ages?"     Did  any  one  of  them  ever  dream  that  it 

a  high  crime,  scarcely  less  heinous  than  that  of  Uzza, 
Vbihu,  &c.,  to  worship  God  in  any  ott< 
of  praise  ?    Let  them  produce  a  solitary  scrap  from  any 
writer  of  those  early  times  to  prove  these   points,   and 

i  we  will  attend  to  their  demonstrations.     Till  t! 
we   will   continue   to  believe   that    the    primitive   church 
found  UA  DrvTNfl  precept,"  as  Ralph  Erskinedid,  (in 
Ephesians  5  :  19  j  I  for  singing  h  tman 

paraphrases  of  th<  of  Solomon,"  i  -  all 

other  suitable  portions  of  the  Scripture*.     An  1  further, 
that  manj  primitive  Christian! 

ed  by  the  Father  of  lights,  to  enable  them  |  es 


154  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

suitable  songs  of  praise.  As  a  specimen,  Basil,  of  the 
fourth  century,  cites  one  that  had  become  very  ancient 
even  in  his  day,  and  which  is  translated  by  Dr.  Pye 
Smith  as  follows:  "  Jesus  Christ  —  joyful  Light  of  the 
Holy  !  Glory  of  the  Eternal,  heavenly,  holy,  blessed 
Father  !  Having  now  come  to  the  setting  of  the  sun — 
beholding  the  evening  light,  we  praise  the  Father  and  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God.  Thou  art  worthy  to  be 
praised  of  sacred  voices,  at  all  seasons,  0  Son  of  God, 
who  givest  life.    Wherefore  the  universe  glorifieth  Thee  I" 

Another,  equally  ancient,  begins  thus  :  "  "We  praise 
thee — we  sing  hymns  to  thee — we  bless  thee — we  glorify 
thee — we  worship  thee — by  thy  great  High  Priest;  thou 
who  art  the  true  God — who  art  the  One  unbegotten,"  &c. 
In  such  strains  the  early  Christians  conducted  the  service 
of  song. 

It  was  of  such  hymns  as  these  Clemens  of  Alexandria 
(about  A.  D.  175,)  wrote  as  follows  :  "  Gather  together 
thy  children  to  praise  the  Leader  of  children,  the  eter- 
nal Logos,  the  eternal  Light,  the  Fountain  of  mercy. 
Filled  with  the  dew  of  the  Spirit,  let  us  sing  sincere 
praises,  genuine  hymns  to  Christ  our  king."  * 

From  the  fourth  century  down  to  the  period  of  the 
glorious  Reformation,  no  one  can  question  the  common 
use  of  hymns  not  found  among  the  one  hundred  and  fifty 
Psalms.  The  martyrs,  Huss  and  Jerome,  who  were 
burned  by  the  Papists  at  the  Council  of  Constance,  sung 
such  hymns,  even  amid  their  last  sufferings.  Of  Jerome, 
history  says  :  "  As  he  went  to  execution  he  sung  the 
Apostles'  creed  and  the  hymns  of  the  church  with  a  loud 
voice  and  a  cheerful  countenance.  He  kneeled  at  the  stake 
and  prayed.  Being  then  bound  he  raised  his  voice  and 
sung  a  paschal  hymn,  then  much  in  vogue  in  the  church  : 

'Hail!  happy  day,  and  ever  be  adored, 
When  hell  was  conquered  by  great  heaven's  Lord.' " 

Luther  wrote  many  hymns,  among  others  a  small  vol- 
•  For  some  further  proofs  and  examples  of  these  primitive  hymns, 
see  Letter  No.  XIV. 


HISTORICAL   ARGUMENT    FOB    HYMNS.         158 

ume  of  about  forty  pieces,  for  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Nor  was  there  in  that  noble  offshoot  of 
the  Reformation,  the  church  of  Scotland,  any  great  hos- 
tility to  hymns.  To  the  copies  which  we  have  seen  of 
paraphrase  of  the  Psalms,   Sternhold  and 

kins,  we  Bud  prefixed  thirteen  hymns,  including  the 

js  of  Zacharias  and  Mary.  Twelve  similar  songs 
Stand  at  the  close,  including  "  songs  to  be  sung  before 
morning  and  evening  prayer" — "  a  prayer  to  be  sung 
before  the  sermon/'  and  M  a  thanksgiving  after  receiving 
the  Supper."     Here  are  twenty-five  hymns  at- 

tached to  the  Psalms  of  David,  and  bound  with  the  Bible  ! 
Can  any  one  doubt  with  what  object?  These  songs  are 
for  the  most   part  not  even  paraphrases  of  portions  of 

ipture,  but  "mere  human  compositions. "  To  what 
erU  nt  they  were  used,  we  have  no  means  of  information. 
Such  a  prefix  or  appendix  to  Rouse,  in  these  modern 
times,  would  produce  some  astonishment,  if  tolerated  and 
published  by  our  strict  brethren  in  this  country. 

us  now  turn  to  some  of  the  objections  to  our  views : 
1.   u  The   book   of   Psalms   is   an  inspired  system  of 
Psalmody."     "  It  is  the  workmanship  of  God;    *    *     it 
is  perfect,  and  m  needs  no  addition/'* 

]>wt  it  has  been  shown  in  previous  Letters,  that  it  was 
not  so  viewed  even  by  the  Jews.  Hezekiah,  the  mourn- 
en  for  Joeiah,  4c.,  used  "other  productions." 

in  :  We  admit  that  for  all  the  purposes  for  which 

it  Id  <J,  as  "  the  production  of  Infinite  Wisdom," 

-  part  of  "the  rule  of  faith/'  &c,  the  book 

of  P&alms  is  "perfect."     But  David  in  the  19th  Psalm 

-,  "The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect*1  What  did  he 
mean?  Doubtless  God's  holy  Word.  And  how  larj 
part,  even  of  the  Old  Testament,  did  the  church  pos 
at  that  period?  Certainly,  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and 
perhaps  the  other  historical  records  of  Samuel  and  the 
Kings,  and  some  of  the  Psalms.  If  the  law  of  the  Lord 
Wat  icn,  (to  say  nothing  of  the  New  Testament,) 

*  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  pp.  142,  1S9. 


156  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

where  was  the  use  of  those  Psalms  which  were  not  com- 
posed at  that  period,  and  of  the  prophets  who  lived  in 
subsequent  ages?  We  hold  the  perfection  of  the  Psalms, 
just  as  we  hold  the  perfection  of  the  "  law/'  viz.  a  per- 
fection which  admits  all  the  clearer  Divine  revelations 
of  subsequent  periods — a  perfection  for  the  uses  for  which 
it  teas  designed  by  Infinite  Wisdom.  Let  it  be  proved 
that  God  designed  the  book  of  Psalms  as  a  perfect  and 
all-sufficient  system  of  praise  for  all  ages,  and  the  objec- 
tion will  then  cease  to  be  a  mere  begging  of  the  question. 
2.  Another  objection  :  "  In  the  book  of  Psalms,  not 
an  attribute  of  the  Deity,  not  a  work  that  he  has  done, 
but  here  stands  forth  in  bold  relief."*  If  this  were  true, 
it  would  render  almost  useless  all  the  rest  of  the  inspired 
volume.  What  more  do  we  want  than  all  the  attributes 
of  God,  and  all  his  works  of  creation,  providence  and  re- 
demption ?  But  where  in  the  Psalms  are  we  told  that 
Christ  should  appear  in  this  world  as  a  little  child,  "  the 
babe  of  Bethlehem,"  not  as  a  full  grown  and  perfect 
man  ?  Where  do  they  teach  that  he  should  be  born  of 
a  virgin — that  Mary  of  Nazareth  was  to  be  his  mother — 
and  that  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth"  was  the  long-predicted 
Messiah,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  "  false  Christs  ?"  Where 
are  we  told  of  that  most  affecting  work  of  mercy,  the  par- 
don of  the  thief  on  the  cross  ?  Where,  the  institution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  from 
the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  ?  "  Not  a  work 
that  he  has  done  /"  Was  the  Reformation  under  Lu- 
ther "a  work  of  God?"  What  Psalm  speaks  of  it? 
And  so  we  might  run  on  for  pages,  exposing  the  folly  of 
those  who  claim  for  the  "  book  of  Psalms"  a  perfection 
which  its  glorious  Author  never  designed  it  should  pos- 
sess.")"    In  their  zeal  for  a  denominational  dogma,  these 

•  Preacher,  Dec.  29,  1858. 

+  "  If  3'ou  want  a  book  which  shall  adequately  set  forth  the  high 
praises  of  the  Lord  our  God,  for  all  he  is  and- for  all  he  has  clone,  in 
the  vast  ranges  of  creation,  providence  and  redemption,  then  we  need 
no  other,  and  can  find  no  other  than  this  book." — United  Presbyterian, 
of  Cincinnati. 


AmWXBfl    TO    OUJIICTI'  1ST 

brethren  -  that   u  life  and  immortality  are 

brought  to  Kgkt  in  the  gospel." 

8.  Third  objection.  "We  have  no  command  to  make 
praise,  in  addition  to  those  composed  bj  David 
au<l  the  others  in  the  book  of  Psalms."  Neither  18  there 
anv  command  to  mufa  scrim -ns.  We  have  the  precept, 
k'  Preach  the  word,"  which  implies  that  our  discourses 
must  be  oompoeecL  So  we  have  a  eommand  to  sing 
praises,  and  the  inspired  hymns  and  examples  of  those 
who   OOmposed    oth  than   are   found  among  the 

one  hundred  and  fifty  Psalms.  Will  it  be  said,  that 
Qod  has  not  given  us  a   "book  of  sermons/'    but    has 

D  us  a  "book  of  Psalms  *.'"  This  is  a  mistake.  The 
title  oi  "the  book  of  Eoclesiastes,"  not  only  in  the  orig- 
inal Hebrew,  but  in  the  Septuagint,  Vulgate  and  English 
tendons,  is  u  the  Preacher."  Here  are  the  dibrai  kohe- 
lethj  i%  the  words  of  the  Preacher,''  his  public  discourses, 
or  a  collection  of  inspired  srrmons.  Besides,  what  forms 
the  greater  part  of  the  pmphets,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
public  ad  I   Moses,  and  Solomon,  and  Ezra,  and 

Nehemiah,  and  Job?  Are  there  not  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, also,  a  large  number  of  the  discourses  of  the  Sa- 
viour and  his  Apostles?  The  whole  Bible  is,  in  great 
part,  a  collection  of  "  inspired  sermons."  "Well,  then, 
as  there  is  no  divine  precept  to  make  sermons,  why  does 
the  preacher  presume  to  compose  them  ?  Does  he  think 
he  can  make  better  discourses  than  inspired  men,  yea, 
than   even  the   Divine    Saviour   himself!     So  it   would 

i  ;   otherwise   he  would  use  those  already  prepared, 

~  nnons,  u  the  workmanship  of  God,  productions 

of  Infinite  Wisdom."      What  pro/am  men  these  preach- 

must  be,  thus  w  impiously  to  reject*  the  discourses 
1,  and  inspired  prophets  and  ap<- 
preached,  in  order  to  give  a  pre/arena   to  their  own  effu- 
sions I*     The  same  reasoning  holds  good  in  regard  to  the 

*  We  admit  that  the  apostlo  nnoni — bat  ' 

-ana'  it  remmim  I  I  that  their  example  uutL  . 

as." 

u 


158  LETTERS    OX   PSALMODY. 

"  human  composition"  of  their  prayers,  in  preference  to 
the  very  numerous  prayers  composed  by  inspired  men. 

4.  These  brethren  object  to  our  theory  as  involving  the 
profane  idea  that  "some  parts  of  the  word  of  God  maybe 
laid  aside  as  useless,  while  other  portions  may  be  selected 
and  profitably  retained/'*  This  has  been  already  answered. 
Do  not  these  objectors,  to  a  much  larger  extent,  lay  aside 
many  parts  of  the  discourses  of  the  Bible  ?  Did  they 
ever  preach  one  of  them  in  place  of  one  of  their  own  ? 
Thus  they  "  entirely  omit  many  whole  sermons,  and  large 
pieces  of  many  others  IV  The  very  thing  which  they 
charge  upon  Dr.  Watts  "  as  a  contempt  of  the  Spirit  of 
Inspiration,"  they  themselves  practice  in  their  discourses 
and  in  their  public  prayers  !  They  group  together  texts 
from  all  quarters,  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  and  thus 
patch  up  their  own  "  human  compositions,"  which  they 
exalt  above  the  word  of  God,  viz.,  by  setting  aside  "  in- 
spired sermons"  to  make  room  for  their  own  productions. 
Besides,  are  there  no  parts  of  the  word  of  God  which 
these  brethren  "  lay  aside  as  useless"  for  the  public  read- 
ing of  the  Scriptures  ?  Does  Dr.  P.  ever  read  from  the 
pulpit  certain  passages  in  the  Levitical  law  ?  Does  he 
ever  quote  such  texts  in  the  presence  of  his  congregation  ? 
No,  he  purposely  avoids  them.  See,  then,  how  he  ulays 
aside  some  parts  of  the  Holy  Scripture  as  useless"  in 
public  worship  !  Of  course,  it  follows  that  he  must  think 
"  the  word  of  God  given  in  a  very  defective  form  !"  Thus 
he  decides  that  certain  portions  of  Divine  truth  are  un- 
suitable for  public  worship  !     How  shocking  ! 

5.  It  is  objected,  that  our  method  of  employing  the 
book  of  Psalms  in  praise,  involves  as  a  legitimate  result, 
that  men  may  alter  and  improve  the  whole  Bible,  the 
rule  of  faith,  &c.  And  it  gives  a  license,  it  is  said,  to 
every  "  imitator  and  hymnographer  to  attempt  to  com- 
pose hymns  to  thrust  out  the  songs  of  Zion." 

The  answer  is  obvious  :  We  believe  "  the  whole  word 
of  God  is  of  use  to  direct  us  in  praise;"  and  that  in  the 
*  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  112. 


webs  TO  OBJECT!  159 

lering  of  the  matter  of 
duty  church    in   her  highest  judicatory^  not  of 

\itator  and  hymnographcr"   to  take  the  exclu- 
tii  n.    In  this  as  in  ev<  ry  ether  appropriate  Bphere 
of  her  duty,  the  church  hat  th>  promised  pre* 

M  !>t,  ,\  "  Lo  I  am  with  yoa  alw 
to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  and  where  two  or  three 
are  gathered  in  my  name,  there  am  I,"  &e.j  and  has  a 
moat  clear  and  express  title  to  expect  the  aids  of  the 
'niy  t"  say  tic    leasts  with  n>>  I 

S    irit  in  "the  hum  /''  of  his 

prayers!    If  it  be  said  that  this  i-  a  very  large  and  dan- 
ger to  intrust  in  the  hands  of  the  church;  we 
reply,  nut  a  whit  larger  or  more  dangerous  than  the 
ation    of  her  Oreed  <tu<l   Catechisms!     Not  a  whit 
more  dangerous  than    to   intrust  to  the  pa* 
of  the  church  the  whoU  exposition  of  the  word  of  I 
and  especially  the  wholt  explaining  of  tic  Pbalms  before 
,  thus  "giving  1  I  sense"  to  all  that 

ypical,  clearing  up  what  is  obscure,  and  instru 
tin*  people  in  the  doctrines  implied  or  expressed  !     ( 
y  the  colleetii  m  of  the  church  m 

individual 
We  maintain  that  as  the  "rule  of  faith/1   the  Bible 
eannot  be  altered  for  the  better,  either  in  whole  or  in 
]>ut  every  preacher  altera  On  order  and  conn   lion 
of   T        S    iptures,  both   in   his  serni 

To  make  them  more  plain  and  instructive  I 
ad  render   the   worship 
iL 

-  it  with  the  church  in  the  )•■■■  of  the 

•'    Scripture  for  j  ur 
atten  pt  r  than 

than  in  the  form  r.      E 
P  ■  that  "the  I3  a    to 

open    th  ;    fountains,   which   oth<  i  i 

1/'  &o,      I:  i  |  r  vers  — 


160  LETTERS    OX   PSALMODY. 

either  by  the  individual  preacher  in  the  pulpit,  or  under 
the  supervision  of  the  whole  church  in  her  highest  court. 
Which  is  likely  to  be  the  safer  guide,  let  common  sense 
decide. 

For  such  ends  as  these,  it  is  obvious  that  in  order  to 
worship  with  "  the  spirit  and  the  understanding  also," 
adaptation  is  needful,  yea  indispensable;  selection  is  law- 
ful, explanation  is  absolutely  necessary,  transposition  and 
grouping  of  parts  may  be  highly  expedient  and  proper, 
expounding  typical  matters,  &c,  may  be  highly  com- 
mendable, condensation  (as  in  creeds  and  catechisms)  is 
the  proper  work  of  the  church,  &c.  But  surely  it  does 
not  follow,  because  we  advocate  such  liberties  as  these, 
that  we  must  therefore  to  be  consistent,  attempt  to  amend 
"the  rule  of  faith,"  "  raise  a  hue  and  cry  against  the 
old  Bible,"  &c.  By  no  means.  "The  old  Bible"  is 
just  what  it  ought  to  be,  "  the  perfect  Law  of  God." 
All  that  we  teach  is,  that  in  the  three  great  elements  of 
public  worship,  preaching,  prayer  and  praise,  the  church 
is  entitled,  yea,  is  bound  in  fidelity  to  her  Divine  Master, 
to  use  all  the  means  and  advantages  which  God  has  given 
her,  to  open  and  expound  his  Divine  word,  to  employ  its 
precious  truths  in  the  most  suitable  and  edifying  mode, 
and  to  draw  from  its  inexhaustible  stores,  whether  in 
the  New  Testament  or  the  Old,  the  sacred  and  soul  stir- 
ring themes,  the  blessed  and  delightful  meditations,  the 
glorious  truths  and  bright  manifestations  of  God  in  the 
flesh,  the  devout  aspirations,  &c,  which  have  thrilled  the 
hearts  of  God's  children,  both  under  the  new  and  old 
dispensation,  and  formed  the  songs  of  angels  and  spirits 
of  the  just  in  heaven. 

The  sum  of  the  argument  is  therefore  briefly  this: 
The  "  principles"  on  which  the  Presbyterian  system  of 
Psalmody  is  formed,  are  substantially  the  same  as  those 
on  which  all  exposition,  especially  all  lecturing  upon  se- 
lect passages  of  Scripture,  is  conducted — the  "princi- 
ples" on  which  ministers  compose  their  prayers  and  "ex- 
plain   the    Psalms' — the    " principles"    on    which    the 


-    TO    OBJ]  1G1 

church  assumes  the  immense  responsibility  of  construct- 
ing ber  Creed  and  Catechisms;    in  a   word,   the  Bame 
u  principles"  by  which  the  church,  as  all  admit,  assumes 
poI  and  direction,  under  responsibility   to   her 
iher  part  of  Divine  worship. 
6.    But  it  is  alleged  u  that  the  tendencies  of  onr  hymns 
gly  toward  error  and  heresy — while  th 
when  vet  exclusively  used,  have  proved  highly  conserva- 
tive in  keeping  the  church  right." 

But  here  the  facts  are  generally  the  other  way.     Take 

the  example    of   the  Jews.        Tic  y    BUng,   they  still  sing, 

David's  Psalms  alone  and  in  the  original  Hebrew.  Have 
they  always  been  remarkably  free  from  idolatry,  heresy 
and  apostasy  '.' 

Th e  blessed  Saviour,  too,  a  Divine  Pastor,  had  a  small 
congregation,  which  these  brethren  say  praised  God  only 
in  David.      Were    they,   including   the   traitor  Judas,  all 
remarkable  for  stability  in  maintaining  the  truth  ?      On 
rtain  occasion  "they all  forsook  him  and  fled!" 
postolic  church,  too,  these  brethren  affirm,  used 
only  David.     But  how  early  did  "the  mystery  of  iniquity 
.  to  work?"     How  soon  were   even  apostlei    sum- 
moned to  contend  with  deadly  heresies  a  in 
tie-  bosom  of  the  churches  they  had  planted  '.'     Sing 
the  Psalms  of  David,  even   in  their  purest  and  most  un- 
adulterated form,  was  not  a    preventive  of  error  among 
them,  as  their  experience   sadly  testified.       The  Jew* 

ut  day  sing  the  Psalms  of  David  in  a  much 
purer  state  than  the  friends  of  Rouse.  The  Arians  of 
Ulster  use  the  veritable  '-old  Bouse."     They  used  it  at 

time  when  their  a;  rarred.       Perhaps, 

they  also  sung  other  productions ;  hut  in  this  they 
n  . 1 1 1 i 1 1 _:  worse  than  the  Free  church  of  Scotland  ;  uor  is 
tier  Uest  evidence  that  to  this  Bouroe  must  be 

ly  of  Ulster,  any  more  than  their  vol- 
ume of  hymns  by  Watt-  and  others,  is  likely  to  corrupt 

the   Fri  ••  church. 

Again,  all  Protestant  churches  u>e  the  Bame   I 
14* 


162  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

Then  how  absurd  for  any  one  to  ascribe  to  any  English 
versification,  say  the  patchwork  verse  of  Rouse,  a  higher 
usefulness  and  efficiency  in  any  particular,  than  he 
ascribes  to  the  pure  word  of  God,  including  the  Psalms 
in  prose,  and  the  Xew  Testament. 

7.  The  use  of  hymns,  it  is  further  objected,  u  promotes 
disunion  and  schism,  while  the  tendencies  of  David  ex- 
clusively are  manifest  toward  union  and  harmony. " 

This  is,  perhaps,  the  most  extraordinary  of  all  objec- 
tions. There  are  not  less  than  five  or  six  denominations 
which  sing  "  Rouse's  paraphrase  1"  They  are  quite  small 
in  numbers,  and  their  differences  are  admitted  to  be  of 
no  very  great  magnitude.  For  many  years  two  of  the 
more  harmonious  among  them  have  been  holding  conven- 
tions, composing  platforms,  issuing  "  Testimonies  '■'  and 
other  bonds  of  union ;  writing,  speaking,  praying,  preach- 
ing, yea,  even  singing  Rouse,  in  order  to  promote  their 
union.  What  has  been  the  result  ?  Why,  instead  of 
two  sects,  as  formerly,  there  are  now  three  composed  of 
the  same  materials  ?  Yet  their  leading  authors  bitterly 
reproach  our  hymns  as  sources  of  division,  "  sectarian- 
ism/' &c. 

Were  all  these  smaller  sects  put  together,  they  would 
not  compose  a  body  at  all  unwieldly  for  its  magnitude — 
probably  not  over  seven  hundred  or  eight  hundred  minis- 
ters and  perhaps  seventy-five  thousand  communicants. 
Does  this  look  like  union  and  harmony  ?  The  "  secta- 
rian hymns"  are  not  responsible  for  these  divisions. 
They  have  all  enjoyed  an  "  inspired  Psalmody" — but 
strange  to  say,  it  has  neither  prevented  nor  healed  their 
fragmentary  divisions  and  subdivisions,  but  a  new  one 
has  just  been  added  to  the  number. 

Admitting  that  each  denomination  naturally  wishes  to 
have  its  Psalmody  in  concord  with  its  doctrinal  and  practi- 
cal views  —  and  this  is  a  result  of  common  sense — what 
follows  ?  Is  it  any  better  among  those  churches  which 
sing  Rouse  ?  The  plain  truth  is,  that  by  "  explaining 
the  Psalm/'  these  brethren  make  Rouse  teach  whatever 


VfSRfi   !!0  OBJECT]  1G3 

tarian  views"  they  may  individually 
hav  .  just  as  the  Brians  of  Ulster  do — and  what 

in-  r«  b  dd  of  the  authorised  Psalmody  of  all  other 

denominations  1     Of  course  each  sect  will  reflect  its  own 

pture   in    its  preaching,  its  prayers,  and   its 

public  praise,  and  there  be  no  cure  Cor  the  evils 

more    than    the   evils    of   the  others.     End 
/  error  is  a  far  more  "powerful  and  certain 
r  the  increase  and  perpetuity  of  sectarianism/' 

than  prau 

Nor  is  the  influence  of  House  in  the  Presbyterian 
churches  of  Scotland  much  better.  The  four  principal 
denominations  embrace  a  little  over  two  thousand  eight 
hundred  congregations — beinir  five  hundred  congregations 
less  than  belong  to  the  Old  School  Presbyterians  of  this 
country.  Has  the  Psalmody  of  House  always  secured 
purity  and  concord  there  ?  Head  Iletherington's  history 
M  deratism,"  Burgher  and  Anti-Burgher  strifes, 
(o.  Elead  Dr.  Beveridge'a  account*  of  the  fearful  con- 
flicts in  the  days  of  the  Erskines,  when  as  Ralph  says, 
k>  tL  f  the  teni]>le  were  like  to  be  turned  into 

lings!9'     W>,  even  the  "  songs  "  of  the  anti-sectarian 
lloufi  way  by  the  flood  of  cold  hearted  u  Moder- 

atism,"  or  turned  into  "howling*!91     And  as  a  remedy 
f->r  these  evils,'Ralph  Erskine  recommends  the  singing  of 
mon's  Song/'  &c, 
]>ut  perhaps  Bome  one  will  now  inquire — "Did  ever  any 
nee  really  make  sueh  an  objection  to 
ian  Psalmody  "'"     We  reply  in  two  or  three 
from  leading  peri- '.Heals  of  our  brethren  :  "These 
inan-made  books,"  they  say,  "  are  all  and  always  teeta* 
.  and  their  tendency  is  to  perpetuate  errors  and  divi- 
"  We  have  a  Methodist  hymn  book,  a 
B  iptist  hymn  book,  a  Mormon  hymn  book,  a  Unitarian 
hymn  b  K>k,"  &e<  f     Well,  there  would  be  some  force  in 
this,  if  tfa  r  could  persuade  these  several  sorts  of 

*  Charts  Memorial,  | 

|  United  r  .1,  of  Cincinnati. 


1G-4  LETTERS   ON   PSALMODY. 

errorists  to  do  all  their  preaching  and  praying  according 
to  Rouse,  as  well  as  their  singing.  And  especially  if  he 
could  persuade  them  to  lay  aside  the  time-honored  cus- 
tom of  "explaining  the  Psalm  !"  But  until  this  is  done, 
we  greatly  fear  the  Mormons,  not  unlike  the  Jews,  might 
sing  even  Rouse  and  be  no  nearer  the  true  religion  ;  and 
the  Unitarian  preacher,  like  the  Avian  of  Ulster,  might  also 
sing  Rouse;  but  by  "  explaining  the  Psalms"  he  would 
"  wrest  them,  as  he  docs  the  other  Scriptures,  to  his  own 
and  his  hearers  destruction  !"  But  of  one  thing  we  are 
perfectly  sure — that  by  the  singing  of  the  tcords  of  Rouse 
with  a  Mormon  or  Socinian  "  explanation/'  no  great  ad- 
vance would  be  made  toward  union  and  harmony  among 
Christian  churches  ! 

But  hear  another  defender  of  this  sort  of  faith.  In 
speaking  of  those  who,  as  he  alleges,  "  set  aside  the  Di- 
vine system  of  praise/'  he  says  :  "What  is  the  spectacle 
which  they  present  ?  The  Oalvinist  praising  the  perfec- 
tions and  works  of  God  as  they  appear  in  his  system  of 
theology;  the  Arminian  as  they  appear  in  his ;  the  Uni- 
versalist  as  they  appear  in  his ;  and  so,  down  through 
every  grade  of  error,  from  that  which  is  nearest  the  truth 
to  that  which  is  most  remote  —  making  the  worship  of 
God  as  the  confusion  of  Babel  !"  * 

We  greatly  marvel  that  these  brethren  have  entirely 
overlooked  the  Jews,  and  "  the  Arians  of  Ulster/'  espe- 
cially the  latter,  in  their  anti-sectarian  labors.  Those 
respectable  bodies  certainly  call  for  their  sympathy  as 
loudly,  to  say  the  very  least,  as  the  Mormons  and  Uni- 
versalists.  Particularly  since  they  are  so  very  anxious 
to  effect  a  reform  in  what  Dr.  K.  calls  "  the  worship 
of  God  !" 

But  seriously — can  any  well  informed  person  imagine 
that  the  Jew  is  less  of  a  Jew,  "ihe  Arian  of  Ulster" 
less  of  an  Arian — or  either  Arian  or  Jew  less  of  a  sec- 
tary, because  they  both  sing  u  the  Psalms/'  either  in 
House  or  in  Hebrew  ?  Or  that  any  other  sect,  Mormon, 
*  Rev.  Dr.  Kerr,  in  Preacher,  Jun6  9,  1817. 


A&SWSRS  165 

Universalis,  ftc.,  would  be  at  all  oearci  the  Scriptural 

if  which  Christ  speaks,  by  ringing  B  maen&eocplained 
by  their  sectarian  teachers  I  All  Christian  churches  are 
instructed  by  their  faithful  pastors,  to  read  and  study 
diligently  both  the  Testaments,  including  the  book  of 
m&  Still  these  Btudies  d«>  not  lead  them  to  the  Bame 
precise  oonclurions  iu  all  minute  matters  of  faith  and 
practice.  Nor  can  we  reasonably  expect  any  different  re- 
sult from  their  ringing  these  Scriptures,  or  amy  pari  of 
them.      Yet  charity  bids  rtain  the  belief  that  the 

ling  denominations  are  one  in  ''holding  the  Head." 
But  what  sort  of  Christian  union  would  that  be,  even 
supposing  all  the  sects  to  sing  House,  if  they  still  con- 
tinued to  teach  and  defend  as  earnestly  as  ever  their  sev- 
eral peculiarities  ?  We  have  a  precious  example  of  this 
sort  of  oneness  in  the  half  dozen  or  more  small  bodies 
which  agree  in  singing  Rous 

We  maintain  that  there  is  quite  as  much  true  Chris- 
tian union  in  the  vast  majority  of  the  evangelical  world 
who  reject  Rouse,  as  among  the  small  minority  who  use 
that  Psalmody.  The  former  can  at  least  unite  in  the 
sweet  anthem  commencing  : 

All  hail,  the  power  of  Jesus'  name  ! 
L  '  saints  before  him  fall : 
Bring  forth  the  royal  diadem, 

And  crown  Him  Lord  of  all. 

And  the  same  sweet  harmony  pervades  the  entire  volume 
of  1 1 .  th  comparatively  few  exceptions — 

-  by  DO  means  to  render  their  public  praise  ikthe 
Babel  of  OOufusiou."  Certainly  not  a-  much  BO  a>  their 
public  prayer  and  preaching.  Does  Dr.  K.  hold  that  the 
whole  devotional  B  the  sanctuary  as  maintained 

by  all  Christian  deuominati'  atei 

*  If  mi 

inch. 

monv.  from  the  ad 

i  muefa  moi 

such  a  result  froi  four  hundred  or  five  hu: 

"  human  ii. 


1G6  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

of  Bouse,  are  "the  confusion  of  Babel?"  So  it  would 
seem.  Such  are  his  "  brotherly  kindness  and  charity." 
We  are  suspicious  of  a  zeal  for  union  which  brings  forth 
such  fruits.  But  enough  of  such  remedies  for  sectarian* 
The  men  who  can  have  faith  in  them,  need  not  find  it 
hard  to  believe  that  baptism  is  regeneration,  or  that 
prayer  and  praise  are  appreciated  in  heaven  by  the  char- 
acter of  the  sound  rather  than  by  the  sense,  by  the  words 
uttered  with  the  lips,  rather  than  by  the  spiritual  emo- 
tions of  the  heart. 

But  why  should  the  various  Christian  denominations 
differ  on  this  subject  —  why  not  all  agree  to  adopt  "the 
Psalms  "  as  their  system  of  praise,  and  in  "  a  literal  and 
correct  version  1"  This  inquiry  has  been  variously  an- 
swered in  our  previous  pages — but  some  further  remarks 
will  be  given  in  our  next  Letter. 


LETTER  XIII. 

BOOK    OF    PSALMS    NOT    DESIGNED    TO    BE    THE    ONLY    AND    PERPETUAL 

PSALMODY  OF    THE  CHURCH FIVE  FURTHER  ARGUMENTS  TO  PROVE 

IT FRUITS    OF    THE    EXCLUSIVE     SYSTEM SUSPENSION    OF    MINIS- 
TERS, ELDERS  AND  CHURCH  MEMBERS — ARGUMENT  FROM  ANALOGY 

PRAYER   AND  PRAISE BOTH  HUMAN    COMPOSITION SO  MINGLED  IN 

THE    PSALMS    AS     TO    BE    INSEPARABLE,    HENCE     INCONSISTENCIES 

STRANGE  JARRING  OF    OPINIONS    ABOUT    THE    NATURE    OF    "INSPIRED 
PSALMODY" — GROSS    ERRORS    OF    BOUSE. 

My  Dear  Sir  :- — In  pressing  their  demand  that  nine 
tenths  of  the  churches  in  this  country  should  abandon 
their  cherished  usages,  and  go  over  to  the  other  tenth, 
viz.  the  friends  of  House,  one  of  the  most  popular  argu- 
ments takes  this  form  :  "  You  have  no  conscientious  scru- 
ples in  regard  to  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  Psalms  of  the 
Bible.  In  perfect  consistency  with  your  position  you 
can  admit  our  practice  to  be  in  itself  right — but  in  con- 


5  :vi:   THE  ENABLE.  1G7 

ncy  with  cur  views,  we  advocates  of  Rouse  cannot 

I  your  practice.     You  oan  ring  the   Psalms  of 

David,  but  we  cannot  use  your   Psalmody."     And  the 

inference  seems  to  be,  thai  for  the  Bake  o/*  union,  the 

.;  body  of  the  evangelical  church  Bhould  conform  to 
the  Bmall  fragment  of  the  defenders  of  House,  by  adopt- 
ing their  exclusive  theory. 

Now  without  pausing  to  remark  upon  the  modesty  of 
all  this,  but  putting  the  case  in  its  strongest  shape,  sup- 
that    these   brethren  really  sing     "  the   inspired 
not  an  explanatory  paraphrase ;  concede  for  a 
moment  that  the  real  question  is  not  (what  wc  have  shown 
it  to  ween  "  the  paraphrase  of  House"  and  the 

phrase  of  Dr.  Watts,  amended  by  our  Assembly, 
iitting  all  this  for  argument,  this  popular  plea  pro- 
-  upon  several  obvious  mistakes: 
1.  We  don»t  admit  either  their  principle  or  their  prac- 
u  to  be  in  itself  right."  The  principle  which  assumes 
a   Divine  wan  singing  u  a  literal  version  of  the 

•  book  of  Psalms,"  we  regard  as  both  false  and  in- 
jurious to  the  best  interests  of  the  church  under  her  pres- 
ent dispensation.    That  there  is  no  such  "Divine  appoint- 
ment" either  in  the  precepts  or  the  practice  of  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles,  has   been  proved,   we  trust,   in   former 
Letters.      And  this   result  is  strongly  sustained   by    the 
inablene&s  of  the  thing  itself.     Take  for  example, 
the  first,  though   not   the   most  Striking  illustration  that 
itself:  "Thou  desirest  not  sacrifice,  else  would 
—thou  delightest  not  in  burnt  offering.     The 
:ices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit,''  ftc.*     Rouse  gives 
iment  quite  liUraUyy  and  as  far  as  it  goes,  nothing 
appropriate.   But  is  nothing  more  required 
is  tl         •  nan  Bung 
b  Wishart  the  before  his  martyr* 

•A pi  lm66:  15.     "I  will  offer  unto  thee  burnt 

:   I  will  offer   bullocks 
with  goaW     And  so  uith  very  many  otfa 


168  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

dom,  and  in  the  reformation  times  of  John  Knox,  in 
parallel  with  our  paraphrase : 

wishart's  hymn.  dr.  watts. 

Gif  thou  had  pleased  sacrifice      A  broken  heart,  my  God,  ray  king, 
I  should  them  offered  thee  ;  Is  all  the  sacrifice  I  bring — 

But  thon  wilt  not  sic  sacrifice,      The  God  of  grace  will  ne'er  despise 
For  thou  art  wonder  free  :  A  broken  heart  for  sacrifice. 

And  givest  us  thy  benefites  *  *  *  * 

Through  Christ's  blude  freely.      Thy  blood  can  make  me  white  as 
To  thy  mercie  will  I  go.  snow, 

No  Jewish  types  could  cleanse  me 
so. 

Indeed  these  brethren  virtually  admit  this  to  be  "  the 
right  practice/'  for  in  "  explaining  the  Psalm/'  they 
teach  the  people  to  sing  the  words  of  Rouse  with  the  very 
meaning  adopted  by  Wishart  and  Watts  !  The  impiety 
of  attempting  to  improve  the  inspired  song,  is  just  as 
great  in  the  one  form  as  in  the  other — the  difference  be- 
ing between  improvement  in  prose  and  improvement  in 
verse.  And  the  distinct  recognition  of  the  only  true  sac- 
rifice, "the  Lamb  of  God/'  in  this  and  other  songs,  we 
believe  to  be  a  duty — an  essential  method  of  "  confessing 
Him  before  men."  So  the  prophet  Zechariah  —  "They 
shall  look  on  me  whom  they  have  pierced,  and  mourn." 

2.  We  have  much  stronger  objections  to  the  exclusive 
feature  of  our  brethren's  "  practice."  While  in  them- 
selves considered,  there  is  no  part  of  any  of  the  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  Psalms  which  is  absolutely  unfit  to  be 
sung  —  there  are  unquestionably  portions  of  many  of 
those  Psalms  which  are  less  suitable  for  New  Testament 
worship  than  many  other  parts  of  the  inspired  Scriptures. 
And  we  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  it  is  wrong,  ut- 
terly wrong  to  suffer  such  portions  of  the  Psalms  to  rx- 
clude  other  more  suitable  and  equally  Divine  ascriptions 
of  praise  from  the  private  and  public  devotions  of  God's 
people.  Take  for  instance  those  beautiful  songs  in  the 
"  Revelation."  There  can  be  scarce  a  doubt  that  the 
hymn,  chapter  5  :  9-13,  was  intended  to  exhibit  the  na- 


i:x«  LUSIVE  THEORY  UNTENABLE,     1G9 

and  characteristics  of  the  New  Testament  Psalmo- 
dy.    Dr.  Soott  Bays  —  "Though  heaven  is  the  tcetu   of 
m$j  yei  they  had  continual  reference  to  the  tem- 
trahipj  and  the  state  of  the  church  on  earth 

is  particularly  adverted  to."     And  what  Jo  they  si 
ut  in  Dr,  S    )t\  answers — "They  all  joined  in 

whioh  was  not  cmly  most  excellent,  but 

it  was  also  new,  in  respect  of  the  occasion  and  compost" 
(ion  :  for  the  Old  Testament  church  celebrated  the  praises 

of  Jehovah,  *  *  and  anticipated  the  coming  of  the  ex- 
pected Messiah;  but  the  New  Testament  church  adored 
Christ  as  actually  comei  as  having  finished  his  work  on 

earth  *  *  *  and  entered  into  his  glory. "  And  so  of 
other  songs  in  that  book.  Yet  these  very  songs  of  ador- 
ing wonder  and  love  —  u  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  tlmt  loas 
$hii)t,"  ftaj  these  magnificent  anthems  sung  with  WeSB  I 
I  and  sinless  hearts  "  in  heaven/'  are  pronounced 

iious  corruptions/'  if  sung  by  the  church  on  earth  ! 
We  cannot  but  regard  the  principle  which  leads  to  such 
results  as  wrong,  and  highly  offensive  to  "Him  who  sit- 
teth  on  the  throne,  and  to  the  Lamb."     Yet  the  prinoi- 

of  these  brethren,  while  it  repudiates  such  songs  as 
a  mentioned,  regards  as  highly  acceptable  such  stan- 
zas as  the  following  : 

Let  covetous  extortioners 
Catch  ali  be  hath  away  : 
Of  all  tor  which  he  lahored  hath, 

. 

Let  there  he  none  to  pity  him, 
Let  there  be  Done  at  -ill 
That  on  hi^  children  father!- 
Will  let  his  mercy  fall. 

Lei  Gtod  bii  fkdu  r*i  wickedness 
nembranee  <-;ill : 

ever  let  his  moth'  . 
Be  blotted  out  at  -ill. 

iniDg  he  like  clothes  put  on, 

Illto    }; 

and  into  his  bones 
.i.  down  let  I 
15 


170  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

The  New  Testament  interprets  these  passages  as  refer- 
ring to  the  traitor  Judas — and  of  course  they  belong  to 
"the  legal  or  prophetic  language"  of  a  previous  econo- 
my, as  Dr.  Watts  correctly  explains  them.  But  why 
should  such  stanzas  be  esteemed  of  "  Divine  appoint- 
ment" and  most  acceptable  praise,  while  the  song  of  sub- 
lime triumph  which  John  heard  sung  "  in  heaven n 
(Rev.  19  :  1—7,)  over  "  the  judgments  "  which  "  aveng- 
ed the  blood  of  God's  servants  "  upon  "  the  great  whore" 
of  the  apostasy,  would  be  a  vile  "corruption  ?" — "  Alle- 
luia, salvation  and  glory  and  honor  and  power  unto  the 
Lord  our  God."  "And  again  they  said,  Alleluia. 
Praise  our  God,  all  ye  his  servants."  "  And  I  heard 
as  it  were  the  voice  of  a  great  multitude,  and  as  the  voice 
of  many  waters  and  of  great  thunderings,  saying,  Alle- 
luia, for  the  Lord  God  omnipotent  reigneth."  "  In  these 
praises,"  says  Dr.  Scott,  "  the  emblematical  representa- 
tives of  the  church  and  her  ministers  most  cordially 
united."  Yes,  they  could,  unite  "in  heaven"  —  but 
these  brethren  cannot  unite  with  the  church  on  earth  in 
such  a  song  !  "  They  are  compelled  to  be  silent,"  they 
tell  us,  "  lest  they  should  offer  strange  fire  \n 

3.  That  the  "book  of  Psalms"  was  not  designed  by 
its  Divine  Author  as  the  Psalmody  of  the  church  exclu- 
sively and  for  all  coming  time,  appears  most  evident  from 
a  comparison  of  its  contents  with  the  substance,  style 
and  tenor  of  the  New  Testament,  especially  the  Epistles. 
The  new  dispensation  requires  additional  forms  of  wor- 
ship, preaching,  prayer  and  praise. 

Probably  no  one  will  question  that  the  writings  of 
Paul  and  the  other  apostles  form  a  perfect  standard  by 
which  to  construct  our  prayers  and  our  sermons.  How 
constantly  and  steadily  is  the  attention  fixed  upon  the 
cross  !  How  does  the  glowing  mind  of  the  writer,  espe- 
cially of  Paul,  delight  to  place  the  crown  upon  the  head 
of  his  Saviour  ?  How  does  he  love  to  dwell  upon  that 
dear  name  "  which  is  above  every  name" — "  that  at  the 
name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  and  every  tongue 


EXCLUSIVE   THEORY    rx'n:x.\i  171 

conn--."  fee.     Thus,  in  the   Epistle  to  the  BphesianSj 
the  titles  Jesus,  Christ,  Jesus  Christ,  Lord  Jesus  Chi 
1.  .1.  Bead,  Master,  Beloved,  occur  tixty-threi  times  in 
one  hundred  and  fifty-five  verses;  and  in   Philippians, 

ty-tkret  times  in  <>no  hundred  and  four  verses.     And 

i*  of  praise,  more  or  less  direct,  are  offered  to 

the  adorable  Redeemer,  in  not  less  than  twenty  instan 

in  Ephesians — Philippians  we  have  not  examined,     hut 

the  peculiar  name  Jesus,  communicated  to  hi-  mother 

Special    revelation   from    God,   is  not   found    in    the 

ins,  and  the  term  "anointed,"  Heb.  Messiah,  is  not 

used  t-»  designate  Christ  more  than  six  or  Beven  times — 

though  the  volume  contains  between  three  thousand  and 

four  thousand  verses — about  fifteen  times  the  number  in 

the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  the  Philippians. 

The  same  train  of  remark  applies  to  the  third  1' 
of  the  adorable  Trinity.  The  three  or  four  thousand 
verses  of  the  Psalms  mention  the  Holy  Spirit  n-'t  m  >re 
than  live  or  six  times;  but  in  the  Ephesians  alone,  we 
find  his  name  in  connection  with  his  Divine  operations, 
eleven  times.  The  New  Testament  economy  is  emphati- 
cally "the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit;"  ami  therefore  we 
may  expect  to  discover  much  more  full  and  precious  de- 
monstrations of  his  person,  character,  offices,  attributes, 
and  works ;  and  this  is  especially  true  of  his  regenerating 
and  sanctifying  influences  upon  the  hearts  of  men. 

This  contrast  miirht  be  extended  through  all  the  i_rr  at 
tinguishing  doctrines  and  ordinances  so  clearly  r« -\ 
ed  in   the  new  dispensation — all   that   is   meant  when  it 

id,  "the  law  was  given  by  Moses,  but  g\ 
truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ" — and  "life  and  immortality 
are  br  ught  to  light  by  the  gospel/1     All  devoted,  able 
rs  of  the  N  iif "   E  1 1  alike  on  this 

ize  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  his  a] 
ties  as  tfa  pattern  both  id  prayer  and  preacl 

and  even  in  "explaining  the  Psalms."     Why  Bhould  it 
be  other?  In  these  aspects  we  cannofbut 

iid  the  pi  very  Car  6 


172  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

being  right;  and  for  such  reasons  as  these,  we  cannot 
adopt  their  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody,  and  especially 
not  in  a  literal  form.  We  feel  conscientiously  bound,  in 
our  measure  to  copy  the  inspired  Paul,  who  often  turns 
abruptly  aside  in  the  midst  of  his  most  logical  trains  of 
reasoning,  to  offer  praise  to  his  exalted  Redeemer.  For 
example,  Rom.  9:5,  "  Of  whom  Christ  came,  who  is 
over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever.  Amen." 

4.  We  reach  the  same  general  result,  when  we  exam- 
ine many  of  the  prayers  embodied  in  "  the  Psalms."  It 
has  been  shown,  in  our  previous  Letters,  that  no  Divine 
command  has  indicated  that  book  as  the  crnjy  system  of 
song  under  the  present  dispensation.  In  regard  to  the 
very  numerous  prayers  found  in  it,  there  is  therefore  no 
more  reason  why  we  should  sing  literally  every  expres- 
sion of  the  Psalmist,  than  that  we  should  use  literally 
the  other  numerous  prayers  of  the  Bible,  as  of  Solomon, 
Hezekiah,  Jonah,  Daniel,  <£c.  Suppose  a  minister  were 
to  repeat  literally,  word  for  word,  in  the  supplications  of 
the  pulpit,  the  prayer  of  Jonah,  "  Out  of  the  belly  of 
hell  cried  I."  "  I  went  down  to  the  bottom  of  the  moun- 
tains ;  the  weeds  were  wrapped  about  my  head."  {i  Thou 
hadst  cast  me  into  the  deep  in  the  midst  of  the  seas," 
&c.  Such  passages  as  these  no  doubt  might  be  spiritual- 
ized (as  Dr.  Watts  has  done  of  parts  of  the  Psalms)  and 
used  with  a  true  "  gospel  sense,"  but  we  suppose  no  min- 
ister ever  used  this  language  in  his  prayers.  And  so 
of  other  prayers  recorded  in  the  Bible.  They  were  com- 
posed for  special  occasions,  and  are  universally  regarded 
as  unsuitable,  and  as  never  designed  in  their  literal  form 
for  gospel  worship. 

A  similar  example  presents  itself,  one  of  many,  in  the 
59th  Psalm.     David  speaks  of  his  enemies  thus; 

At  evening  let  thou  them  return, 
Making  gre.at  noise  and  sound, 
Like  to  a  dog,  and  often  walk 
About  the  city  round. 

Now  whatever  may  have  been  the  particular  allusions 


i:\CLrsivi;  THEORY    (J5TEXABLB.  173 

of  the  Psalmist,  every  one  feels  that  the  use  of  thu  lit* 
end  prayer  in  tin  pulpit  would  be,  to  Bay  the  least,  alto- 
gether inexpedient.     With  this  judgment  probably  even 
the  sticklers  for  the  old  version  would  coincide.     Why 
d  do  they  ting  it,  Bince  the  only  difference  is  that  in 
the   latter  rase  they  pray  with  a  turn  '.      And   so  with 
similar  passage  b,  which  all  will  acknowledge  to 
be  highly  unsuitable  for  public  formal  prayer}  but  which 
nevertheless  they   think   highly  appropriate  for  public 
r  with  a  tun*  ! 
The  groat  obscurity  of  many  parts  of  the  Psalms  has 
led  at  least  am  writer  to  take  the  position  u  that  it  is  oot 
S8ary  to  understand  what  we  sing  .  m-  pray)  in  that 
k.M  *     But  if  so,  why  not  express  the  Hebrew  in  En- 
glish letters  and  words,  and  sing  them  ?    By  this  method 
we  would  be  sure  of  using  k'an  inspired  Psalmody."  "j* 
5.    The    gnat    fundamental    doctrine    that    Jksus  OF 

Nazareth  was  the  true,  the  long  promised  Mes- 
siah, though  nowhere  taught  in  the  Psalms,  is  often  most 
emphatically  inculcated  in  the  New  Testament.  For  as- 
suming this  character,  he  was  bitterly  persecuted  by  the 
Jews.  "These  things/'  says  John,  "are  written  that 
ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ/1  "  There- 
fore, M  adds  Peter,  "  let  all  the  house  of  Israel  know  as- 
suredly, that  God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus  *  *  both 
Lord  and  Christ."  And  the  confession  of  this  great  truth 
is  exhibited  by  "the  beloved  disciple"  as  a  test  of  true 
u  Many  dea  ith  rt  are  entered  into  the  world,  who 
confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh/1 
*•  Hereby  know  ye  the  Bpirit  <>f  God — every  spirit  that 
oonfesseth  that  Jesus  I  Ihrist  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  of  I  lod. 
And  erery  spirit  that  oonfesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
•  in  the  flesh,  is  notof  God."  These  arc  very  strong 
declarations.    And  whatever  else  they  teach,  they  at  least 

*  Hat.  Mr.  1 1  ffdon. 

f  ThomAi  Aquinai  held  thai  it  irai  Mary  for  firwi 

.1  the  meaning  of  tin-  Latin  Mem  B 

\  rononnee  them.    Even 
■  ineil  of  Trent  he! 

i5« 


174  LETTERS   ON    PSALMODY. 

condemn  any  exclusive  system  of  praise  which  is  defective 
in  such  essentials  as  these.  We  are  far  from  insinuating 
that  these  brethren  deny  this  fundamental  of  all  reli- 
gion—  but  so  far  as  regards  their  forms  of  praise,  they 
could  not  observe  a  more  profound  silence  if  no  such  doc- 
trine were  true.  Even  the  malignant  Jew  finds  no  fault 
with  their  confession  in  this  particular,  but  unites  with 
them  cordially  !  Can  this  be  a  full  and  scriptural  com- 
pliance with  the  positive  precept  from  heaven,  viz.  "that 
all  men  should  honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the 
Father?" 

If  it  were  necessary  to  multiply  these  objections,  we 
might  advert  to  the  fruits  of  the  system,  of  which  ex- 
elusive  Psalmody  forms  a  prominent  feature.  We  had  the 
painful  privilege,  at  the  meeting  of  the  Associate  Synod 
in  May,  1853,  of  being  present  at  the  trial  of  a  com- 
plaint from  the  decision  of  a  Presbytery,  sent  up  by  a 
minister  of  the  gospel.  The  high  crimes  for  which  he 
had  been  arraigned,  were  these:  1.  "Going  to  hear  a 
minister  of  the  Old  School  Presbyterians  preach."  2. 
"  Inviting  to  his  pulpit  an  Associate  Reformed  clergy- 
man !"  For  these  offenses,  the  Presbytery  was  directed 
by  the  Synod  to  proceed  to  trial  I  What  was  the  final 
result,  we  never  took  the  trouble  to  ascertain. 

Many  of  our  readers  are  familiar  with  the  action  of 
the  Synod  of  the  Associate  Reformed  body,  which  con- 
firmed the  suspension  of  one  of  their  elders  for  uniting 
in  singing,  at  family  worship,  two  verses  of  the  92d 
Psalm  in  our  system,  thus  : 

Sweet  is  the  work,  my  God,  my  king, 

To  praise  thy  name,  give  thanks  and  sing,  &c. 

In  his  "Plea  for  Peace/'  Dr.  M'Claren  has  shown  that 
our  version  of  this  92d  Psalm  is  as  good  as  Rouse's, 
though  not  perhaps  quite  so  close.  This  case  occurred 
in  this  vicinity.  Yet  at  the  very  same  meeting  of  Synod, 
several  of  the  speakers  declared  that  it  was  common,  in 
both  the  Associate  and  Associate  Reformed  Synods,  to 
receive  members  to  communion,  "  who  did  not  hold  the 


KXrU'SlYi:   IHBOBI    UNTENABLE,  1TT> 

■  lectioB  nn-1  predestination/'     These  facts 
nstrate  clearly  which  <  u  to 

the   mint,   cummin    and    anifl  •."    and   which   to    u  the 
weightier  matters  of  the  Ian 

milar  example  was  reported  in  "The  Banner  and 

rson  interested,     lie  had  been  a 

rianj  but  baying  I  to  Tipton  county,  In- 

ind  it  m<  oient  to  unite  with  the  Asa  - 

Reformed.     Soon  a  particular  friend  in  the  Pres- 

rian  ministry  came  along  ami  preached  in  the  neigh- 

B   vcral  tin.  I  the  house  of  this  gentleman. 

The  Associate  Reformed  Bession  got  wind  of  it.     lie  was 

ised  of  being  too  sociable  with  Presbyterian*)  hearing 

them  preach,  and  uniting  with  them  in  singing.      u  This, 

they  sai  1,  was  a  bad  example  that  I  was   setting  before 

the  congregation,  and  as  I  was  one  of  their  leading  mem- 

mid  be  noticing  these  things;   and  that  I 

would    have   to  make   some   acknowledgments   before   I 

could  have  any  church  privilege.      Not  seeing  that  I  had 

gainst  the  All-wise  lluler  of  the  universe,  I  was 

unwilling  to  confess  that  I  had  sinned  against  men  :  and 

the  session  accordii  ceded  to  discipline."     One 

good  result  speedily  followed — a  new  Presbyterian  church 

was  in  a  short  time  erected,  dedicated  and  occupied  by  a 

promif  gregation. 

The  explanation  of  such  extreme  measures  as  these  is 

D"t  difficult,  on  the  principle  stated  by  the  late  Dr.  Clay- 

gh,  of  Oxford.     In  .-peaking  of  the  state  of  denomi- 

risting   in   the   Associate    Reformed 

New  York,  he  said  :  u  It  is  believed  that  there 

eviction  that,  in  order  to  maintain  the  life 

and  energy  of  the  body,  and  prevent  it*  being  twallo 

vp  by  the  larger  denominations,  on  the  principle  that  in 

the  moral  as  well  m  U  rial  world  the  attraction  of 

r   than  that  of  dies,  the 

*  For  January  I 


176  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

distinctive  principles  and  rules  of  the  body  should  be 
firmly  maintained/'  * 

Whether  the  maintaining  of  "  distinctive  rules  n  after 
the  manner  above  indicated,  will  be  promotive  of  the 
great  interests  of  truth,  charity,  and  salvation,  is  a  very 
serious  question.  Ought  not  these  brethren  to  fear  lest 
religion  herself  should  prove  to  be  the  sufferer  from  the 
scorn  of  a  profane  and  wicked  world  ? 

There  are  venerable  and  excellent  men  in  most  denom- 
inations, whose  very  prejudices  we  instinctively  regard 
with  respect.  From  such  a  brother  f  proceeds  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  Our  views  and  usages  lean  to  virtue's  side — 
they  originate  in  our  fear  of  exalting  the  human  above 
the  Divine.  Our  error,  if  error  it  be,  cannot  be  a  dan- 
gerous one.  It  cannot  arise  from  any  disposition  to 
slight  the  word  of  God."  We  regret  to  be  obliged  to 
take  quite  a  different  view  of  this  subject.  So  long  as 
Dr.  M'D.  sings  "  Rouse's  paraphrase,"  interlarded,  and 
if  his  views  be  correct,  corrujrtcd  by  hundreds  of  patches 
of  "  human  composition,"  it  is  vain  to  talk  about  "  the 
fear  of  exalting  the  human  above  the  Divine."  But 
waiving  this — our  esteemed  brother  rejects,  "lays  aside  as 
useless,"  very  many  Psalms  and  hymns  of  the  Bible, 
which  even  he  will  acknowledge  to  be  inspired  and  Di- 
vine. For  example,  listen  to  Ralph  Erskine,  a  chief  cap- 
tain of  the  Seceder  host.  He  is  speaking  of  the  beautiful 
evangelical  songs  of  Isaiah  :  u  Of  all  the  prophets  (not 
excepting  David,)  none  spoke  so  clearly  of  Christ.  The 
whole  of  his  prophecy  *  *  *  abounds  with  more 
poetical  passages,  sacred  odes  and  evangelical  songs,  than 
all  the  other  prophets  besides  (including  David.)  *  * 
Those  Divine  hymns  *  *  have  in  them  as  lofty  and 
sublime  strokes  of  poetry  as  are  to  be  met  with.,}  Now  in 
these  and  scores  of  similar  songs  of  praise  in  other  parts 
of  the  Scriptures,  there  is  nothing  human  for  Dr.  M'D. 

•  Preacher,  July  12,  1S54. 

t  Dr.  M'Dill,  of  Sparta,  Illinois. 


EXCLUSIVE  THEORY  UNTENABLE.     177 

to  be  afraid  of*    Erekin  was  not  afraid  of  "turn- 

ing :  rg  int«>  metro  cm  the  P*atm*  of  David  <n-<\ 

" — because  "it  was  so  order- 
\  t  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  church  of 

tland  in  one  of  her  most  noted  periods  of  her  re- 
formation;"*  "and  also  by  the   Associate   Synod,   in 

1747."      In    all    this   extensive   department    of    inspired 
a   Dr.  MPs.  fears  of  "exalting  the  human  above 
the  Divine"  are  utterly  futile.     Let  him  follow  the  - 

leading  of  that  venerable  Seceder  champion,  and  east  his 

ftam  to  the  winds.     Or  better  still,  let  him  be  directed 

by  the  Act  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  church  of 

land,  passed  August  28j  1(31:7,  "that  noted  period  of 

her  reformation.'' 

But  there  is  another  very  dark  side  of  this  subject,  where 
we  fear  virtui  never  leans.      We    have   neither  time   nor 

•  to  speak  at  large  of  the  lamentable,  desolating  evils 
which  result  so  widely  and  injuriously,  especially  in  the 
V,  •  -t,  fn>m  u  divisions  about  Psalmody."     How  often  is 

moronity  split  into  fragments  on  this  very  rock  of 
stumbling  I  Two  <>r  more  poor  shriveled  churches,  look- 
ing like  Pharaoh's  lean  kine,  drag  out  a  miserable  exist- 

.  the  one  denouncing  the  other  as  guilty  of  "  idola- 
try," --offering  strange  tire  before  the  Lord,"  "  commit- 
ting   the    sin    of    Nadab    and    Abihu,"    "  laying    the 

ping  stone  for  infidelity/'  u  exposing  themselves 
to  the  seven  last  plagues,"  "ineurriug  the  curse 
pronounced  upon  such  as  add  to  or  take  away  from  God's 
revealed  word,"  fcc.  Thus  they  creep  <  d  fir  >m  year  to 
r,  the  one  attempting  to  devour  the  other,  neither 
able  to  Bustain  a  pastor,  or  eren  to  have  preaching  more 
than  a  half  or  quarter  of  the  time.  And  what  is  the 
nal    source   of   the   division?      Why   just    this:    S^-me 

oher  has  taught  the  one  party  it  is  a  </r<<it  win  tu  use 
anything  in  Divine  worship  but  the   "book  of   Plsali 
pie  musl   "  lean  to  virtue's 

They  mu.-t    t  heed    not    k4  to    exalt   the  human 

*  Eftkine'l  Works,  vul.  10,  p, 


178  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

above  the  Divine/'  &c.  Thus  these  two  poor  little 
churches  wrap  themselves  up  in  their  exclusiveness,  the 
gospel  is  not  preached,  heresy  spreads  all  around  them, 
and  souls  perish  by  scores ;  whereas,  if  they  were  united, 
they  could  well  support  an  efficient  ministry,  and  become 
11  a  city  set  on  a  hill/1  a  source  and  centre  of  Divine 
light  and  influence  upon  the  whole  neighborhood. 

Is  the  foregoing  picture  too  sombre  in  its  coloring  ? 
We  fear  that  in  numerous  instances  it  is  not  near  so 
gloomy  as  the  original.  We  believe  these  Psalmody  di- 
visions to  be  needless  and  sinful ;  and  we  as  firmly  hold 
that  the  exclusive  system  from  which  they  spring  is  im- 
practicable in  theory,  false  in  fact,  and  steadily  tending 
to  spread  ruin  among  the  souls  of  men. 

Before  closing  this  Letter,  we  wish  to  remark  upon 
two  or  three  topics,  which  have  hitherto  been  deferred. 
Frequent  allusion  has  been  made  to  the  scriptural  doc- 
trine of  public  and  social  prayer,  especially  as  strictly  of 
"  human  composition."  Both  prayer  and  praise  agree  in 
being  a  direct  address  to  God,  and  the  one  is  as  near  and 
solemn  an  approach  to  infinite  purity  as  the  other.  Nor  is 
there  any  greater  presumption  against  the  right,  in  itself 
considered,  to  compose  our  own  praises,  enlightened  and 
assisted  by  the  word  and  the  Spirit  of  God  (who  is  pro- 
mised to  "  dwell  with  the  church  to  the  end  of  the  world/') 
than  to  compose  our  own  prayers.  Suppose  now  a  min- 
ister should  make  the  following  announcement  to  the 
people  of  his  congregation — "  Brethren,  you  may  com- 
pose a  prayer  of  any  suitable  length,  the  object  of  which 
shall  be,  in  whole  or  in  part,  ( in  your  prayers  to  praise 
God.'  You  may  select  the  materials  in  whole  or  in  part 
from  the  New  Testament ;  you  may  clothe  it  either  in 
whole  or  in  part  in  your  own  language ;  you  may  take 
it  either  in  whole  or  in  part  from  the  book  of  Psalms  or 
from  other  suitable  parts  of  the  Scriptures ;  and  if  you 
offer  it  in  faith,  or  '  in  the  name  of  Christ/  you  may 
assuredly  expect  the  Divine  blessing,  and  the  acceptance 
of  your  offering.     But,   brethren,    beware  lest  you  be 


■Z0LU8IY1   Tlir/n:Y    UNTSNABUL  179 

tempted  to  utter  that  same  prayer  with  a  tune)  for  if  you 
dure  to  do  BO)  you  will  commit  a  bid  like  unto  the  sin  of 
•Vial)  and  Abihu' — you  will  'offer  Btrange  lire' and 

call  down    ■    CUrse   upon   your   heads!      Y<»u  may  f gpeak 

.    and  'in    your   prayers   prai.-e   him'  with  BUch   ft 

'human  composition/  but  it'  you  dare  to  ring  it,  'woe 

Le  unto  you  1  '  " 

But  it  is  said  to  be  "  most  daring  presumption  and  te- 
merity" for  any  man    to  undertake  to  furnish  u  matter  to 

prat*  the  Great  God  in  all  that  is  imposing  in  his  wor- 

ihip   and   lervioe."  *     Yet    we  have   precisely  the  same 

-    if  ''suitable   matter,"   viz.  the  word,  Spirit,  pro- 

and  works  of  God,  (orpraue  as  for  pray*  r.  And 

with  the  presence  and  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit  promised  to 
the  church,  she  has  just  as  valid  and  perfect  a  right  to 
compose  a  hymn,  or  approve  it,  when  composed,  and 
ring  it,  as  to  compose  a  prayer  and  speak  it !  She  has 
all  the  advantages  in  the  one  case  that  she  has  in  the 
other. | 

Let  us  now  compare   the  proprieties   of   praise  with 

Be  which  are  acknowledged  in  the  reading  and  preach- 

of    the  word.       u  In   these    latter   exercises/7    says 

thew  Henry,  "  God  speaks  to  us — but  in  prayer  (and 

praise)  we  speak  to  God."     From  these  definitions  we 

perceive    why    certain    sentiments    and    passages  of  the 

ptures  may  be  highly  proper  and  suitable  when  God 

-   US,  or  when  we   read  or  hear  the  Scriptures; 

and  yet  be  much  less  suitable  as  the  matter  of  our  ad- 

to  God,  when  we  engage  in  praise  and  prayer. 

God,  foe  example,  may  choose  to  address  us  by  the  pen 

*  Pi  ember  W,  I  - 

i  mat  "G  ■  i  has  himself  proyided  s  per/*  * 
' — 1  m t  that   u  ■  paint  to  he  proved,  Dot  taken  for 

at  and  tii"  Dew  dispensation, 
There  are  many  rerj  n  the 

tarial  -  to  prepare  and  dm  these  abnn- 

ition  of  her  children,  ii  t1!"  solemn 
of  the  ehnreh,  whether  in  pre  word,  prayer  <>r  praise.     This 

-•.ill  duiu^. 


180  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

of  an  inspired  Jew,  and  by  this  instrumentality,  living 
as  he  did  under  a  dispensation  of  types  and  shadows,  he 
may  record  for  our  instruction  many  matters  pertaining 
to  "  burnt  offerings/'  "  incense  of  rams/'  "  bullocks  upon 
the  altar/'  "  organs/'  "  timbrels/'  "  dances/'  "  cornets," 
"  trumpets/'  "  new  moons,"  &c,  and  the  holy  resolutions 
of  the  pious  of  that  day,  to  observe  those  typical  rites 
and  ceremonies,  which  were  then  commanded  duties, 
may  come  down  to  us  as  the  inspired  record  of  the  zeal, 
self-denial  and  holy  fervor  of  the  pious  Jews.  "  The 
only  wise  God"  thus  chooses  his  own  method  of  address- 
ing us,  expounded  as  it  is  by  a  further  record — the  Gos- 
pel dispensation  taking  the  place  of  the  Mosaic — the  New 
Testament  a  commentary  on  the  Old.  But  when  we 
come  to  speak  to  God — to  express  "  the  desires  of  our 
hearts,  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  thankfully  acknow- 
ledge his  mercies,"  or  perform  the  act  of  praise,  "  which 
terminates  in  God,  and  by  which  we  confess  and  admire 
his  perfections,  works  and  benefits,"  circumstances  are 
entirely  changed.  God  may  obviously  speak  to  us  in  a 
manner  and  form  in  which  it  would  be  mockery  and  pro- 
faneness  for  us  to  speak  to  Him.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  we  may  piously  and  profitably  read  or  hear  many 
many  things  found  in  the  Scriptures  which  we  may  not 
employ,  even  though  originally  of  a  devotional  nature, 
in  speaking  to  God. 

For  example,  how  incongruous  and  improper  would  it 
be  for  a  minister  to  introduce  into  a  prayer  the  greater 
part  of  the  150th  Psalm,  as  follows  :  "  0  God,  we  praise 
thee  with  the  sound  of  a  trumpet,  we  praise  thee  with 
stringed  instruments  and  organs,"  &c.  Indeed  this  is  so 
obvious,  and  strikes  the  common  sense  of  Christians  so 
universally,  that  probably  no  person  ever  heard  any  min- 
ister of  any  denomination  use  such  a  prayer  either  in 
private  or  public.  In  the  temple  service  these  were  com- 
manded duties,  and  therefore  their  literal  performance 
was  a  religious  act,  and  a  refusal  to  obey  would  have 
been  sin.     But  now  that  that  method   of  praising  God 


EXCLUSIVE  THEOM  UNTENABLE.     181 

with  trumpets,  high-sounding  cymbal-,  organs,  dan 
is  all  done  away,  "  to  speak  to  God"  in  prayer,  and  "  in 
our  I  praise  him/1  by  expressing  "our  desire91 

or  intention   to  employ  this  ancient  service,  "  organs,'1 
"dances,"  &o.,  in  his  worship,  all  feel  to  be  unsuitable; 
.  probably  no  one  ever  ventured  so  far  to  disregard  this 
c  in  limn  feeling  of  propriety  in  the  sacred  and  solemn  duty 

:a\(  r,  unfolding  as  we  do  the  most  secret  recesses  of 
the  heart  to  the  Omniscient  eye.  as  to  make  such  an  ex- 
perimenf  npontheg  and  Christian  conscientious- 

of  mankind.  How  then,  we  ask,  can  it  be  most 
suitable  and  proper  fur  us  to  "speak  to  God"  in  praise, 
which   is  an   equally   solemn  and  direct  address  to  the 

archer  of    all   hearts,"    language  which    we   shrink 
from  in  the  act  of  prayer?     Nothing  but  common  us 
has  sanctioned  a  distinction,  where  obviously  there  is  no 

irial  difference.      We  are  far  from  supposing  it  ne- 

ury  in  all  acceptable  prayer  and  praise,  "to  assume 
every  thought  and  expression  for  our  own."  But  we 
maintain  that  if  the  whole  book  of  Psalms  is  of  Divine 
authority  for  praist  literally,  and  in  preference  to  all 
'  other  inspired  matter,  its  advocates  fall  into  the  forego- 
ing  difficulties  and  inconsistencies.  No  scriptural  diver- 
sity between  praise  and  prayer  can  explain  or  justify  such 
incongruities. 

In  the  foregoing  Letters  we  have  purposely  avoided 
any  extended  comparison  of  the  two  versifications  or 
11  paraphrases"  of  the  Psalms  most  commonly  used.  It 
has  indeed  been  boldly  asserted  that  we  "  exalt  Watts 
above  David."  But  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  point  out 
the  obvious  distinction  between  the  authorship  of  the 
Psalm-,  which  all  admit  to  be  inspired,  and  the  very 
humble  part  performed  by  the  uninspired  arranger  of  a 
tical  "paraphrase  of  the  Psalms/1  God  spake  the 
Psalms  by  David — or  David  spake  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
Dr.  Watts  writes  a  poetical  paraphra$e  of  the  Psalms. 
Is  he  therefore  a  bitter  writer  than  David?  No  n 
than  /•//,/•  than  David.      No  Presbyte- 

16 


182  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

rian  of  ordinary  sense  ever  conceived  such  a  sentiment. 
It  must  have  originated  in  another  quarter. 

On  the  other  hand  the  theory  and  practice  of  our 
brethren  appear  to  take  almost  as  various  hues  as  the 
chameleon.  Thus  in  their  "Testimony"  they  say — "We 
testify  for  the  book  of  Psalms  in  &  faithful  translation"  * 
Dr.  Cooper,  on  the  contrary,  says  :  "  The  only  question 
is,  has  the  translator  observed  the  order  and  arrangment 
of  the  original,  and  is  the  idea  fairly  and  fully  brought 
out  V  But  this  is  to  abandon  entirely  the  principle  of 
"  a  faithful  translation."  All  Dr.  C.  contends  for  is 
"  the  inspired  order  and  arrangement — and  that  the  idea 
be  fairly  and  fully  brought  out."  On  Dr.  C's.  principle, 
all  his  "explanations"  of  the  Psalms  before  singing  them, 
are  inspired,  provided  he  has  observed  the  original  "  order 
and  arrangement,"  and  has  fairly  and  fully  brought  out 
the  idea" — conditions  which  he,  of  course,  ordinarily 
observes.  Besides,  Dr.  C's.  principle  condemns  Rouse  in 
forty  or  fifty  gross  departures  from  "the  order  and  ar- 
rangement of  the  original."  For  illustrations,  see  a 
previous  Letter.  Dr.  C.  of  course  repudiates  the  dictum 
of  his  brother  Dr.  P.,  viz.  that  Rouse,  "  like  the  prose 
translation  of  the  whole  Bible,  is  substantially  correct 
and  faithful,  and  for  the  same  reason,  is  to  be  regarded 
as  the  word  of  God ! " — Preadier,  Aug.  9,  1844. 

Very  different  is  the  judgment  of  a  writer  in  "The 
Christian  Witness,"  a  Seceder  organ.  He  utterly  rejects 
Dr.  C's.  theory,  thus  :  "  It  may  be  said  that  such  rhyming 
and  syllabification  do  not  add  to  the  ideas  of  the  original. 
So  }'ou  may  make  a  song  or  sermon  out  of  a  single  sen- 
tence, without  adding  a  single  idea  not  contained  in  the 
text.      But  then  you  give  us  not  the  pure  word  of  God." 

Indeed  this  latter  writer  candidly  admits  that  the  use 
of  ''redundant  words,  paraphrastic  phrases,  diminutive 
expressions,"  &c,  such  as  Dr.  C.  approves,  is  a  virtual 
surrender  of  the  ichole  question  of  "  inspired  Psalmody." 
Thus  he  says  :  "  If  we  may  weaken  the  sense  and  add  a 

*  Testimony  United  Presbyterian  church,  p.  46. 


■XCLUSIV1   THEORY    UNTENABLE.  183 

I  to  make  ■  jingle  ;  it'  we  may  impair  the  forte,  and 
r  supply  a  term  or  phrase,  to  make  up  the  Dum- 
ber of  syllables  in  a  line,  or  the  number  of  lines  in  a 
.  in  order  to  please  our  fam-y,  may  we  not  by  the 
if  reasoning,  add  a  whole  stanza,  or  make 
a  wh  Pour  own  com} 

A  similar  view  is  taken  in  an  article  published  in  "The 
Preacher."*  The  writer  says:  -The  permissioB  t.. 
rhymers  t>>  add  and  dfce,  and  dip  and  twist  t/tr  Holy 
&  •  >,   for  th(  a  rhyming   Psalmody,    has 

opened   a   irate   through  which  ev-  rj    g     \  and  every  con- 
...  and  every  poet,  afflicted  with  an  itch  of  wri- 
ting, has  driven  a  hymn  or  a  hymn  book  into  the  church 
Now,   truly,   I   see   no   good   reason   why   one 
church  should  have  author itfj  to  give  tuch  pt  rmtsnofi,  and 
of    it."      This    of    course    condemns 
Boose.      It'  the  Associate  or  Associate  Reformed  church, 
••  may  add  to  the  word  of  God  word*  of  it$  own 
dent  to  make  half  adoien  Psalms  more  or  less,"  why 
may   not   others   4>  add    the  matter   of  a    dozen!"      And 
lusion  to  which  he  comes  emphatically  is  this  : 
bera  of  rhyming  Pkalmody  are  dii 
'eading  th<  'red  Psalmody" 

In  closing  his  article,  this  writer  plainly  tells  his  breth- 
r  n  that  they  use  a  version  v:hi<:h  has  no  authority  in  the 

Bible.     Dear  him : 

"  We  have  no  authority,  then,  from  Scripture,  tor  ma- 
king _  ing  of  rhyming   Psalms )  we  are  under  no 
Sltj  to  have  Or  to  use  them." 
But  while  some  of  these  brethren,  like  the  last  writer, 
would  repudiate  Rouse  (and  every  other  system  in  rhyme) 
'/•"/,  it  Btill  has  Eealoua  defenders.     Thus  Rev. 

l>r.   Ken  :    u  We  Would  have  BO  more  objection  to  a 

f  that  which  is  known  a  version,  with 

David,  than  we  would  to  a  comparison  of 

translation   of  the  Bible  with  the  original 
"t 

*  For  J.mn.iry  10,  1  - 

|  Preacher,  AugOSt   '.'.  1847. 


184  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

Thus  we  are  back  on  the  basis  of  the  "  Testimony," 
viz.  "  a  faithful  translation,"  "  the  unadulterated  word 
of  God,"  "  songs  composed  in  heaven  !" 

Nor  do  these  brethren  harmonize  much  better  in  re- 
gard to  another  aspect  of  the  same  subject.  In  a  debate 
on  the  subject  of  "  Improvement  of  Psalmody,"  in  the 
Associate  Synod,  *  Dr.  Cooper  said  :  "  Something  must 
be  done.  The  interests  of  the  church  and  the  extension 
of  our  cause  are  involved.  I  refer  members  to  a  letter 
from  brother  Herron.  He  says  we  do  not  appreciate  the 
matter  here.  We  are  familiar  with  this  version,  but  it 
is  not  so  elsewhere.  He  has  great  difficulty  in  persuading 
the  people  to  make  use  of  this  version,  owing  to  the 
awkwardness  of  the  expressions.  They  are  becoming 
tired  of  it.  It  makes  me  feel  very  unhappy  when  I 
think  of  the  awkwardness  of  them,  and  know  that  the}' 
might  be  so  easily  improved.  Those  who  have  had  any 
experience  on  this  subject  must  feel  the  force  of  his  ob- 
jections. Any  poetry  two  hundred  years  old  must  he  of 
such  a  character  as  to  excite  a  smile.  The  pronunciation 
and  phraseology  are  altogether  different  from  what  they 
are  now."  So  also  a  writer  in  the  "  United  Presbyterian  " 
"  despairs  of  ever  bringing  the  Catholic  church  back  to 
David's  Psalms,"  without  a  new  and  better  version — and 
without  such  version,  he  adds,  "we  must  rest  content, 
either  to  give  up  a  Divine  appointment,  or  remain  a  little 
separated  branch  of  the  church  to  all  coming  genera- 
tions." 

That  there  are  very  serious  doctrinal  and  historical  er- 
rors in  "  Rouse's  paraphrase,"  does  not  admit  of  a  doubt. 
Thus  Psalm  69  :  4  :.  "  They  that  would  destroy  me,  be- 
ing mine  enemies  wrongfully,  are  mighty  :  then  I  restored 
that  which  I  took  not  away."  This  Psalm  is  a  most  re- 
markable prophecy  of  the  Messiah.  "  The  Holy  Spirit," 
observes  Scott,  "evidently  spoke  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should  follow.  Indeed  it  is  so 
manifest  a  prophecy  of  Christ,  that  we  should  consider 

*  May,  1854. 


BXCLUBIYI   IHS0E1    (JNTHNABLB.  185 

Jiiin  irts  of  it."      How  then  has 

the  Terse  quoted  ab 

Tbej  that  vronld  me  destroy,  and  are 
Miii-  -'iy, 

thai  I  took  not 
To  render  / 

isi  made  satisfaction  for  our  sins,  and  restored 
r  U)  the  Divine  law  which  he  hud  not  taken 
S     %     But  was  Christ  "Jbrced"  to  do  this? 

I  to  make  satisfaction  for  sinners?    To  sup- 
khis  ifl  to  overthrow  the  essential  nature  of  the  Di- 
vine sacrifice  ;  to  misrepresent  the  inspired  record,  and 
ntradict  the  Saviour  himself:   u  I  lay  down  my  life 
the   sheep.     No  man  taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it 
down  of  myself." 

rendering  in  our  system  is  liable  to  none  of  these 

objection-  : 

Twtl  then  I  paid  that  dreadful  debt 
Which  men  could  never  pay, 
And  I  >non  to  thy  law, 

Which  sinners  took  an 

The  following  from  Psalm  18  :  25,  is  nearly  as  unintel- 
persons  as  the  Hebrew  : 

Thou  gracious  to  the  gracious  art, 
To  upright  men  upright  : 
Pure  to  the  pure,  Broward  thou  kyth'st 
Unto  the  froward  wight. 

We  cannot  enter  into  further  details.     But  in  closing 
ft  respectfully  ask,  ought  not  the  arguments 
and   facts  of  this  and  previous  discussions  to  lead  these 
bretl  usly  to  reflect  upon  certain  moral  as] 

of  •  lition?     Have  they  not  virtually  cut  off 

i  the  church  of  Christ,  the  Free  church,  the  Estab- 
lish, and  all  the  other  Scottish   Presbyterian 
ehu;  pi  a  small  u  fraction."     I  Bay  virtually — 

they  have  not  the  power.     But  is  not  this 
mute  result  of  their  exclusive  principles 
1  >r.  ( land]  Cunningham 

10* 


186  LETTERS   ON    PSALMODY. 

were  to  come  to  this  country,  they  could  not  be  admitted 
to  commune  with  these  brethren  !  Certainly  not,  if  they 
would  treat  those  distinguished  persons  as  they  do  their 
own  elders,  who  sing  "  the  mere  productions  of  men." 


LETTER   XIV. 


MISREPRESENTATIONS    OF    DR.    WATTS    EXPOSED  —  THE    USE    OF    HYMNS 
IN     THE     PRIMITIVE     CHURCH,     PROVED     BY     DR.     m'mASTER,     MERLE 

D'AUBIGNE,     NORTH      BRITISH      REVIEW,      NEANDER,    AND      OTHERS 

LETTER    OF    PLINY TESTIMONY  OF    EUSEBIUS HYMNS  CONDEMNED 

BY    THE    COUNCIL    OF    LAODICEA,    WHICH    ALSO    FORBID    ANY    TO    SING 

EXCEPT      THE      CHORISTERS  CASE      OF      THE      HERETIC      PAUL      OF 

SAMOSATA  —  TRUTHS    ESTABLISHED    BY    THAT    CASE. 

My  Dear  Sir  : — In  this,  my  closing  Letter,  I  propose 
to  examine  with  some  care  various  injurious  charges 
made  against  the  memory  of  Dr.  Watts,  and  intended  to 
reflect  odium  upon  those  who  employ  his  poetical  labors 
in  the  worship  of  God.  In  view  of  the  principles  and 
arguments  of  former  Letters,  how  strange  that  men  of 
piety  and  sense,  who  have  written  much  on  these  topics, 
should  utter  such  a  sentiment  as  this:  "The  principle 
which  maintains  that  these  Psalms  (of  David)  are  not 
suitable  to  be  employed  in  the  worship  of  the  church  un- 
der the  gospel  dispensation,  is  a  discovery  of  modern 
times. "  *  But  who  maintains  such  a  principle  ?  Certain- 
ly no  Presbyterian.  Dr.  Watts  and  some  others  have 
said  this  in  regard  to  certain  farts  of  the  Psalms  —  but 
never,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  of  "the  Psalms"  as 
a  whole.  See  how  easy  by  a  little  twist  of  this  sort,  to 
caricature  the  sentiments  of  any  man  or  set  of  men? 

A  similar  mis-statement  represents  Dr.  W.  as  having 
*  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  6. 


VINDICATION    «>r    DB.    WATTS.  187 

i  that  the  Psalma  as  given  by  inspira* 
ti'  ii.  observe,  the  ftalms,  the  whole  Builms!}  are  unfit 
to  be  rang/' *  Here  is  a  similar  perversion.  A.gain, 
Dr.  K.  tells  us — u  Isaac  Watts  conceived  the  idea    *     * 

that  GENERALLY  they  (l.  <.,  the    Psalms  as  given  by  in- 

Bpiration)  tended  to  'sink  our  devotion  and  hurt  oui 
In  reply,  I  again  deny  the  statement  as  a  mat 
ter  of  tart.  Isaac  Watt-  never  "conceived  such  an  idea/1 
The  words  as  partly  quoted,  are  at  the  close  oi  an  argu- 
ment in  which  Dr.  Watts  expressly  says  he  is  .-peaking 
of   "several    }  and   "the  application  of   many 

:    David;"  he  is  Bpeaking  of  "the  omission  of 
whole  lines  and  verses,"  by  a  certain  class  of  intelligent 
"  whereas,"  he  adds,  "  the  more  unthinking  go 

ging  in  cheerful  ignorance  wherever  the  clerk  (or  pre- 
centor) leads  them,  across  the  river  Jordan,  through  the 
land  Gebal,  Amnion,  and  Anielek  ;  *  *  they  enter  into 
the  temple,  they  bind  their  sacrifices  with  cords  to  the 
horns  of  the  altar,  they  join  with  the  high-sounding 
cymbals,  their  thoughts  are  bedarkened  with  the  smoke 
of  in«  i  nse  and  covered  with  Jewish  veils."  Now  it  is  of 
these  tpecial  circumstances  and  expressions  that  Dr. 
Watts  says — "  I  fear  they  do  but  sink  our  devotion  and 
hurt  our  worship/1  Is  this  the  same  as  saying  that 
"GENERALLY  they  (the  Psalms)  tend  to  sink  our  devo- 
tion  and   hurt   our   praise!"      Dr.  Watts  is  speaking  of 

tain  special  Jewish  peculiarities  which  he  admits  to  be 
"the  beauties  and  perfections  of  a  Hebrew  Bong,  and 
ite  Wisdom  to  raise  the  affections  of  the 
that  day"  —  but  in  his  judgment  adapted  "to 
sink  the  devotion  "  of  Christians  at  the  present  time. 
])r.  W  itts1  design  and  reference  w  are  to  these  Bpecia]  and 
peculiar  feature-  of  a  part  of  tin-  Psalms — the  editor  of  the 
"  Preacher  "  quotes  bis  words  as  applicable  to  the  Psalms 
gt  i  <  rally  .'    I-  this  a  fair  and  righteous  use  of  the  words! 

We  fa  ~  kte  I  that  the  Presbyterian  church 

Las  i  ;  etjohed   Dr.  Watts1  prose  writings,  nor  is 

•  Tr  -  10,  1861 


188  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

she  responsible  for  their  sentiments.  They  may  be  right 
or  wrong,  true  or  false — they  are  not  ours.  When,  there- 
fore, with  great  parade  and  triumph  certain  objectionable 
statements  are  quoted  against  us  from  those  writings,  this 
can  scarcely  be  reconciled  with  the  principles  of  fair  and 
honorable  discussion,  which  should  govern  all,  especially 
Christians.  This  is  true,  even  when  the  views  of  Dr.  W. 
are  correctly  quoted — much  more  when  they  are  pervert- 
ed as  abo^. 

Again — Dr.  "Watts  is  charged  with  " using  arguments 
not  only  unsatisfactory,  but  impious/'  because  he  says  he 
kept  his  "  grand  design  in  view,  viz.  '  to  teach  his  author 
to  speak  like  a  Christian/  or  'the  common  sense  (or  ex- 
perience) of  a  Christian/  "  But  let  Dr.  W.  explain  his 
own  meaning.  "My  design  is,"  he  says,  "to  accommo- 
date the  book  of  Psalms  to  Christian  (in  opposition  to 
Jewish)  worship.  And  in  order  to  this,  it  is  necessary 
to  divest  David,  Asaph,  &c  ,  of  every  other  character  but 
that  of  a  Psalmist  and  a  saint,  and  to  make  them  always 
speak  the  common  sense  (or  experience)  of  a  Christian." 
In  other  words,  he  designed  that  David  should  "  leave 
Judaism  behind/'  instead  of  praising  God  with  "incense 
of  rams,  trumpets,  cornets,  dances/'  &c.  So  also  in  an- 
other oft-quoted  and  much  abused  passage,  where  he  says 
that  " David  should  be  converted  into  a  Christian  /'  yet 
in  the  very  same  sentence  he  explains  himself,  as  follows, 
viz.  "that  a  good  part  of  the  Psalms  should  be  fitted  for 
the  use  of  the  churches"  in  "a  paraphrase  in  which 
dark  expressions  should  be  enlightened,  Levitical  ceremo- 
nies and  Hebrew  forms  of  speech  changed  into  the  worship 
of  the  gospel,  and  explained  (as  certain  preachers  do)  in 
the  language  of  our  time  and  nation."  This  is  what  Dr. 
Watts  meant  by  teaching  "David  to  speak  the  common 
sense  of  a  Christian,"  and  "converting  hiin  into  a  Chris- 
tian." 

We  do  not  defend  the  use  of  this  phraseology — "con- 
verting David  into  a  Christian."  It  sounds  harshly, 
though  in  the  same  style  with  the  expression,  "teach  the 


VINDICATION    DP   DK.    WATTS.  1    9 

Psalmist  to  speak  English/1  i.  e.,  by  ''translation.'1  * 
Yet  ■  v^ry  little  candor  would  satisfy  any  intelligent  man 
that  his  meaning  was  unexceptionable:  "For  why  Bhonld 
1   d  ress  G  "1  my  Saviour  in  a  Bong,  with  burnt 

of  fatlings  and  with  the  incense  of  ram-'.' 
Why  Bhould  I  pray  to  be  Bprinkled  with  hyssop,  or  recur 
to  the  blood  of  bullocks  and  goats?  Why  Bhould  I  him I 
my  sacrifices  with  cords  to  the  horns  of  the  altar  '.'"  &o. 
By  teaching  his  "author  to  speak  like  a  Christian,"  I>r. 
Watts  therefore  plainly  refers  to  Christianity  as  opposed 
t<>  Judaism  ;  and  means  precisely  what  Dr.  rressly  prac- 
tices every  Sabbath  morning  when  he  explains  a  I '.-aim 
containing  these  ceremonial  and  Jewish  expressions! 
And  yet  Dr.  P.  has  the  boldness  to  ask — "Does  not  Dr. 
Watts  virtually  arraign  the  wisdom  of  the  Holy  One  of 
]-:  ,1  and  undertake  to  teach  him  '  to  speak  like  a  Chris- 
tian?''  We  reply — Docs  not  Dr.  P.  "  virtually  arraign 
the  wisdom  of  the  II<>ly  One  of  Israel  M  when  in  explain- 
ing I  of  the  Psalms,  he  teaches  the  people 
to  sing  them  as  he  interprets  them  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment? Is  not  this  conduct  of  Dr.  P.  quite  as  "  deroga- 
tory to  the  Spirit  of  Inspiration  "  as  the  language  of  Dr. 
Watts? 

"It  would  appear  then,"  adds  Dr.  P.,  "that  in  the 
estimation  of  this  man  i  Pr.  W.)  the  teaching  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  which  the  Psalmist  enjoyed  was  very  insuf- 
ficient, and  that  it  was  necessary  that  one  in  modern 
times  Bhould  undertake  the  office  of  teaching  him  '  to 
k  Like  a  Christian.' "  t  Well,  as  Dr.  P.  constantly 
practices  this  teaching  of  the  Psalmist,  we  hope  he  will 
•forth  be  very  Bev<  re  on  Dr.  Watts  —  especially 

the  chief  difference  between  the  two  sorts  of  teaching 
is,  that  Dr.  P.  teaches  in  prosey  but  Dr.  W.  mpdetry! 

in,  Dr.  W.  is  charged  with  affirming  that  pa 
the   i  to  excite  unholy  passions,''  and  u 

*  Here  ii  a  parallel  case:  u  Lather  *     *     *  nndertook  the  difficult 

k    l)i3 

i  //<  -'    i  oj  '■  i  /:■_■'  ■:  a  ■  ., ,,  i      .  , 
t  r  1 1". 


190  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

press  resentment  and  hatred  against  the  Psalmist's  per- 
sonal enemies."  *  Thus  he  says,  "  Among  the  impreca- 
tions that  David  uses  against  his  adversaries  in  the  Psalm 
(35th)  I  have  endeavored  to  turn  the  edge  of  some  of 
them  from  personal  enemies  against  the  implacable  ene- 
mies of  God  in  the  world."  On  this  last  passage  Dr.  P. 
remarks — u  Here  the  reader  will  see  that  David  is  sup- 
posed to  have  uttered  imprecations  against  personal  ene- 
mies. Could  he,  then,  have  been  under  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  ?  "  We  reply — certainly  the  Psalmist 
could  not  "  have  been  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  if  his  imprecations  were  directed  against  those 
who  were  his  personal  enemies,  considered  in  his  private 
character  as  a  member  of  society  ;  or  if  lie  was  governed 
by  feelings  of  private  revenge.  But  was  not  David  a 
king  ?  Did  he  not  shed  much  blood  f  Did  he  not  sus- 
tain the  character  of  a  judge  in  Israel,  as  also  that  of  an 
eminent  protector  of  the  church?  Were  not  the  heathen 
around  "  his  adversaries"  in  all  these  respects  ?  Or  does 
Dr.  P.  think  it  equally  unchristian  to  ci  utter  imprecations 
against  enemies  in  any  of  these  relations?  Take  for 
example,  the  familiar  case  of  David  and  Goliah.  Does 
Dr.  Pressly  think  it  was  "  unchristian"  in  David  to  pray 
that  Goliah  might  be  slain  ?  Was  not  Goliah  his  adver- 
sary, acting  as  David  did  in  the  person  of  a  defender  of 
his  nation  and  his  church  ?  Or  to  go  farther  back,  did 
not  Joshua  and  the  judges  "  utter  imprecations  "  against 
their  "  adversaries"  whom  they  were  commanded  to  ex- 
terminate, certainly  not  as  private  individuals,  but  as 
public  persons  ? 

So  also  when  David  uses  the  following  prayer,  we  per- 
ceive what  Dr.  Watts  means  by  "  sharp  invectives  against 
personal  enemies,"  and  "  imprecations  against  David's 
adversaries."  "  Consume  them  in  wrath,  consume  them 
that  they  may  not  be."  Psalm  59  :  13.  "In  this  Psalm," 
remarks  Dr.  Scott,  "David  expresses  what  his  thoughts 
and  atfcctions  were,  when  Saul  sent  officers  to  watch  his 
•  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  99. 


VINDICATION    OF    DR.    WA  I  191 

house  all  Bight,  to  slay  him.'1  And  on  the  13th  verse 
quoted  above  be  adds  —  "It  ia  probable  thai  David 
meant  the  disgrace,  degradation,  and  gradual  extirpation 
of  Saul's  family,  for  their  opposition  to  the  Lord's 
anointed  (David  himself)  and  all  their  imprecations  and 
calumnies  against  him."  This  is  precisely  what  Dr. 
Watts  means  l>y  u  David's  personal  enemies" — viz.  ene- 
mie>  to  his  person  as  the  King  of  the  Jews,  or  ordained 
bo — enemies  to  his  throne,  and  to  his  life,  &c 

These   examples    also   show   the    meaning   of   Dr.   W. 
when   he  speaks  of  "some  dreadful  cume  agcUnstmcn 
proposed   to   our  lips,  which  is  so  contrary  to  the  new 
commandment  of  loving  our  enemies,"  and  "almost  op- 
posite to  the  spirit  of  the  gospej."     Certainly  Dr.  YV.  is 
right  in  affirming  that  there  is  nothing  in  u  the  spirit  of 
the  gospel"  requiring  us  to  destroy  and  exterminate  the 
heathen,  as  was  the  duty  of  Joshua  and  David.    "Why," 
remarks  Dr.  W.,  u  why  must  I  join  with  David  in  his 
legal  or  prophetic  language,  to  curse  my  enemies,  when 
my    Saviour   in    his  sermons  has  taught  me  to  love  and 
-   them?"     The  reader  will    observe  the  qualifying 
clause — "  in  hit  legal  or  prophetic  language"     Take  ■ 
-  from  the  Psalms.     "  He  teacheth  my  hand* 
>r,  so  that  a  bow  of  steel  is  broken  by  my  bands.   / 
'"/•■'/  them  that  they  were  not  able  to  ri*>  i  they 
are  fallen  under  my  feet.     Thou  hast  given  me  the  necks 
«»f  my  enemies;  that  I  might  destroy  them  that  hate  me. 
Arise,  0  Lord,  disappoint  him,  cast  him  down.     When 
my  enemies  are  turned  back  they  shall  fall  and  perish  at 
resenoe." 

There  are  scores,  perhaps  hundreds  of  similar  passages, 
some  of  them  much  Btronger  in  expression.  To  David, 
as  the  anointed  king  and  captain  of  God's  people,  they 
were  highly  appropriate.  To  that  u  legal"  or  ceremonial 
dispensation,*  when  it  was  David!*  duty  to  fight  and 
terminate  the  surrounding  heathen  nations,  this  langv 
was  moal  suitable.  u  Hut,"  argues  Dr.  Watts,  "as  no 
such  duties  now  devolve  upon  Christians,  why  must  they 


192  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

'join  with  David  in  this  legal  or  prophetic  language?' 
I  cannot  use  it  against  '  my  enemies/  for  I  am  com- 
manded i  to  pray  for  and  bless  them/  Why,  then, 
should  I  use  David's  language  toward  foes  long  since 
dead,  and  which  at  best,  was  i  legal  or  prophetic/  and 
thus  altogether  peculiar  to  that  people,  day  and  dispen- 
sation ?" 

These  illustrations  also  explain  Dr.  Watts'  meaning 
when  he  represents  "  persons  of  seriousness  as  forced  to 
omit  whole  lines  and  verses,  because  they  dare  not  sing 
without  understanding •,  and  almost  against  their  con- 
sciences." "  I  have  left  out/'  he  adds,  "  some  whole 
Psalms,  and  several  parts  of  others,  that  tend  to  fill  the 
mind  with  overwhelming  sorrows  or  sharp  resentments. " 
The  meaning  of  this  is  already  explained.  The  reason 
which  governed  Dr.  Watts  in  these  omissions,  Dr.  P.  says 
is  this — "  Some  of  them  (the  Psalms)  are  of  dangerous 
tendency  !  "     But  where  has  Dr.  Watts  said  so  ? 

"  We  meet  a  line/'  he  says,  "  which  belongs  but  to 
one  action  or  hour  of  the  life  of  David,  that  breaks  off 
our  song  in  the  midst ;  our  consciences  are  affrighted 
lest  we  should  speak  a  falselwod  unto  God  *  *  *  before 
we  have  time  to  reflect  that  this  may  be  sung  only  as  a 
history  of  ancient  saints."  "  There  are  a  thousand  lines 
in  it  (the  book  of  Psalms)  which  were  not  made  for  a 
church  in  our  days  to  assume  as  its  own."  Dr.  W.  speaks 
of  the  dark,  "  carnal,"  shadowy  dispensation  of  Judaism, 
which  Dr.  Owen  says  "  gave  no  clear  and  distinct  appre- 
hensions of  the  future  state  of  glory."  But  is  this  the 
same  as  to  say  that  the  Psalms  which  treat  of  that  dis- 
pensation "  are  of  dangerous  tendency."  He  agrees 
with  Dr.  Jno.  Owen,  that  the  Jewish  system  of  "  worship 
w  is  carnal  and  outwardly  pompous" — also  that  certain 
parts  of  "  these  Psalms  of  Jewish  composure  ought  to 
be  translated  for  Christian  worship,"  and  that  some  of 
them,  and  parts  of  others,  may  be  properly  omitted,  as 
never  having  been  designed  by  their  Divine  Author  for 
the  purposes  of  praise  under  the  gospel. 


VINDICATION    OF    Dll.    WATTS.  193 

But  is  this  the  same  as  "slandering  the  Holy  Spirit 
or  offering  a  fearful  indignity  to  the  Spirit  of  Inspira- 
tion." *  These  examples  will  serve  to  show  with  bow 
liiiu-li  truth  Dr.  W.  is  charged  with  representing  "the 
Psalmist  ie  giving  veni  to  feeling*  of malevokna  toward 
hu permmal  enemies "  &0.  He  admits  that  to  persons 
who  u  have  not  time  to  reflect*  how  certain  parts  may  be 
properly  SUIg  (viz.  "as  a  history  of  ancient  saints/') 
the  tendency  may  be  to  produce  "  overwhelming  sorrows 
and  Bharp  resentments."  13ut  he  adduces  this  rather  as 
an  abuse,  which  ought  to  be  corrected,  than  a  legitimate 
result  from  the  right  use  of  the  Psalms. 

But  it  is  in  his  versification  of  the  119th  Psalm  that 
Dr.  Watts  is  affirmed  to  have  treated  the  writings  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  with  special  indignity  !  u  I  have  collected  and 
disposed/'  he  says.  "  the  most  useful  verses  of  this  Psalm 
under  eighteen  different  heads,  and  formed  a  Divine  song 
on  each  of  them  ;  but  the  verses  are  much  transposed  to 
attain  some  degree  of  connection. "  Dr.  P.  considers  this 
as  indicating  that  he  could  not  have  regarded  the  Psalm 
as  "the  production  of  Infinite  Wisdom/'  "  Is  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit/1  he  asks,  "exhibited  so  awkwardly  as  to 
render  it  necessary  that  the  verses  should  be  much  trans- 
posed to  attain  some  degree  of  connection  I"  "j*  But  here 
Dr.  P.  exhibits  much  more  zeal  than  wisdom  or  prudence. 
We  know  nothing  is  more  common  in  the  pulpit  than  to 
classify  and  group  under  heads  the  members  of  a  para- 
graph. Thus  in  the  Epistles,  the  rapid  intellect  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  under  the  Divine  inspiration,  passes  with 
admirable  vehemence  over  the  parts  of  a  great  subject,  so 
that  in  lecturing  on  his  writings,  it  often  greatly  aids  in 
understanding  the  Bense,  to  have  sacb  a  grouping  together 
of  topics.  Yet  the  preacher  or  lecturer  does  not  suppose 
he  is  thereby  insulting  the  Holy  Spirit !  So  in  the  book 
of  Proverbs,  many  whole  chapters  are  made  up  of  sep- 
arate sentences,  whose  connection  it  is  very  difficult  to 

*  Presslv  on  Psalmody,  po.  (J9,  100,  71. 
|  lr:  i.  p.  111. 
17 


194  LETTERS    ON   PSALMODY. 

perceive.  Thus,  also,  in  the  119th  Psalm,  the  eminently 
pious  and  practical  Matthew  Henry  says,  "  There  is  scl- 
dom  any  coherence  between  the  verses,  but  like  Solomon's 
Proverbs,  it  is  a  chest  of  gold  rings,  'not  a  chain  of 
gold  links/  "  But  if  Dr.  P.  is  correct,  Matthew  Henry 
must  have  believed  the  book  of  Proverbs,  as  well  as  this 
Psalm,  u  to  be  very  awkwardly  exhibited  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  !"  To  such  extravagance  will  men  rush  in  pursuit 
of  some  favorite  notion. 

It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  in  grouping  the  verses  of 
this  Psalm  under  eighteen  heads,  according  to  topics,  Dr. 
W.  has  done  nothing  worse  than  Dr.  P.  himself  does, 
when  he  lectures  on  other  parts  of  the  Scriptures ;  noth- 
ing which  Henry  does  not  admit  to  be  necessary  and 
proper  on  account  of  the  want  of  "  coherence  between 
the  verses."  Nor  is  Watts  more  to  blam3  than  Henry 
and  Pressly !  Certainly  what  is  plain  sober  sense  in 
Matthew  Henry,  cannot  be  so  horribly  impious  in  Dr. 
Watts !  Among  one  hundred  and  seventy-six  verses, 
which  Henry  says  u  seldom  have  any  coherence,"  nearly 
all  spoken  of  the  law  of  God,  Watts  has  classified  those 
which  from  their  meaning  seem  properly  to  fall  together. 
His  object  was  good  —  not  to  offer  insult  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  to  aid  the  feeble  understandings  of  mea  in 
their  attempts  to  show  forth  the  praises  of  the  infinite 
and  incomprehensible  God.  Where  two  or  more  verses 
were  exactly  or  nearly  in  the  same  terms,  he  classified 
them  together,  &c.  In  all  this  he  did  precisely  what 
every  able  lecturer  on  the  Holy  Scriptures  does  in  the  pul- 
pit, in  another  part  of  public  worship,  to  explain,  apply 
and  honor  the  blessed  truth  of  God. 

u  But,"  inquires  Dr.  P.,  "  shall  a  sinful  mortal  select 
such  verses  as  he  considers  'most  useful/  and  pass  over  the 
remainder  as  unworthy  of  notice  ?"  *  But  does  not  Dr. 
P.  "pass  over"  the  20th  verse  of  Psalm  72,  and  reject 
it  from  his  Psalmody?  Does  not  he,  "a  sinful  mortal, 
pass  over  "  a  number  of  other  parts  of  the  Psalms,  espe- 
*  Pressly  on  rsalmody,  p.  114. 


VINDICATION    OF    DR.    WATTS. 

ciallv  most  of  the  inspired  titles?     Does  he  d 

all  the  other  "inspired  Psalms,  hymns  and  sj*irit- 

ual  songs"  in  Isaiah  and  the  other  prophets,  Ac.,  as  uun« 

worthy  of  notice"  in  his  system  of  praise!     As  to  the 

q,  we  have  already  Bhown  that  there 

'//•/,/  or  forty  snch  eases  in  Rouse!     Did  he  "know 

than  the  Holy  Spirit  tJu  order/'  &c.? 

Again,  Dr.  Watts  is  quoted  as  Baying,  that  "he  is  bold 

t<>  maintain  the  great  principle'1  of  his  work,  "that  if 

tightest  genius  on  earth,  or  an  angel  from  heaven, 

shou  U   David,  and  keep  close  to  the  §en$e}  he 

could  not  make  a  suitable  Psalm  book."  * 

Prom  this  Dr.  K.  infers  that  Watts  did  not  design  to 
give  the  "correct  Benso  of  David/'     But  is  there  no  ra- 
tion in   Dr.   Watts'  language?     What  is  the  fact? 
The  paragraph  quoted,  opens  thus:  u  I  must  confess  I 
u  anv  version  or  paraphrase  of  Hu  Psalms 
.1  bwisb  -  feet  as  to  dh 

all  further  attempts.     ]>ut  whoever  undertakes  the  noble 
fc,  let  hi  in  bring  with  him  <i   i  ,  an 

..  1  withal  ;.  -  -  application.     For 

larp  abhors  a  pi  "  fcc.     Then  a  few 

1 : 1 1 •  -  farthi  r  down  in  the 

tract  mutilated  by  the  "  Pn  acher  :"   "  But  still  I  am  I 
to  maintain  il.  rinciple  on  which  my 

I ;  and  that  is,  that  if  the  brightest  genius 
ear!  age!  from  heaven,  Bhoul  David, 

thor, 
should  only  obtain  thereby  a  bright  and  heavenly 

tfu    J(  vish   hingy  but  it  could  never 
mak  ttest  Psalm  bo  k  for  a  Christian  people;"  i.  e., 

for  the  _r"-i"  1  church. 

N>  :nt  out  the  distinctly 

limil  :    Dr.  Watts.     He  is  Bpeaking  of  "the 

.1  "of  the  Psalm: — h  thi  y 

are,  "  the  d  ration*  '    —    d  1  it  is  in 

se  to 

*  1)t.  Kerr,  in  ! 


196  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

the  sense  and  style  of  the  inspired  author  I"  Yet  who 
would  ever  dream  that  this  was  his  meaning  from  the 
extract  made  by  the  "  Preacher  ?"  But  when  this  is 
made  known  it  spoils  the  whole  argument.  Whether 
this  is  fair  treatment  of  an  author,  others  can  decide. 

Again,  I  quote  from  a  printed  volume  thus:  "Dr. 
Watts,  whose  compositions  are  sung  in  public  and  family 
worship  by  a  great  majority  of  professed  Christians  in 
the  United  States,  maintained  that  the  Psalms  were  too 
Jewish  to  be  sung  with  edification  by  Christians. "  "  And 
the  idea  is  very  prevalent  that  the  book  of  Psalms  is  not 
adapted  to  Christian  worship/' 

Both  these  extracts  are  untrue.  Dr.  Watts  maintained 
that  "a  part  of  the  Psalms  are  too  Jewish,"  and  "the 
idea  is  prevalent,"  not  that  uthc  book  of  Psalms,"  but 
parts  of  the  Psalms  "are  not  adapted  to  worship"  under 
the  gospel. 

But  we  cannot  extend  these  illustrations.  They  show 
what  most  unrighteous  judgment  Dr.  Watts  has  received. 
His  paraphrase  of  the  Psalms  is  "the  mere  production 
of  an  English  poet"  —  he  is  charged  with  having  "ad- 
vanced principles  which  strike  at  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,"  *  and  with  "speaking  reproachfully  of  the 
Psalms."  With  what  small  show  of  reason  these  assaults 
are  made,  the  foregoing  examples  will  prove.  In  his 
"  Treatise  on  Prayer,"  he  uses  this  language  :  "  If  we  find 
our  hearts  very  barren,  and  hardly  know  how  to  frame  a 
prayer  before  God  of  ourselves,  it  has  been  oftentimes 
useful  to  take  a  book  in  our  hand,  wherein  are  contained 
some  spiritual  meditations  in  a  petitionary  form,  some 
devout  reflections,  or  excellent  patterns  of  prayer;  and 
above  all,  the  Psalms  of  David,  some  of  the  prophe- 
cies of  Isaiah,  some  chapters  in  the  gospels  or  any  of  the 
epistles.  Thus  we  may  lift  up  our  hearts  to  God/'  &c. 
"Above  all,  the  Psalms  of  David  !"  —  And  yet  we  are 
told  that  Dr.  Watts  "spoke  disparagingly  of  the  book  of 
Psalms  !"     And  in  his  "  Advice  to  a  Young  Man,"  he 

*  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  51. 


VINDICATION    OF    Ml.    WA  191 

:     u  To   direct   your   cai 

irly  with  the  book  of  Psalms."     [osl     I   I  be- 
:    men/1    nothing   would   be 
in  to  prove  by  actual  comparison,  thai  in  a 
number  of  hi*  versifications,  be  baa  given  all  that  i 

PlBalm,  viz.  not  the  very  language  of  oar 

aslation,  which  was  the  work  of  uninspired  men; 

f  R  use,  but  the  sentiments  doctrinal  and 

dei  is  fully  and  fairly  brought  out  in  our  Bjstem 

in  that  uf  Rou 

.  Dr.  AV.  Bays:  MI  think  I  may  assume 

pleasure  of  being  the  first  who  hath  brought  down 

the  royal  author  into  the  eomm  n  affairs  of  the  Christian 

.  and  led  the   Psalmist  of  Israel  into  the  don' 
Ch:  t  anythi  J    -   about   him."     lei 

sert  that  it  was  Dr.  Ws.  intention 
"imj  -  tb(    Pi  dmist  from  the  church  !" 

i  Imit,  with  the  "North  British  Review,"  u  that  in 
hi-  old  age"  Dr.  Watts  unfortunately  attempted  "to  >•  t 
phi ^  right  on   *  and 

:„i)r  to  re-adjust,  f  r  theol  igians, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity."  *  It  was  "  in  his  old  age  " — 
when  in  E  down  by  years  and  bodily  in- 

firmity.    But  in  his  "Prefa  Lyric  Poems,"  he 

iks    of   u  the    eternal   God    1  an    infant    of 

*  *     agonies  of  sorrow  loading  the  bouI  of 
him  wh»  was  God  over  all,  and  the  Sovereign  of  life 

is  arm-  on  a  cross,  1  leeding  and  • 
ild  be  more  full  and  explicit  than  thes 
from  the  45th  and  God  of  his  hymns  : 

God 

Fill*   i 

in  the  Last  jo  i  o — 

I   i     .  -;iil, 

And    I.;.    •::.!. 

*  North  Dr. 
17* 


198  LETTERS    OX    PSALMODY. 

"What  equal  honors  shall  we  bring 
To  Thee.  0  Lord  our  God  the  Lamb, 

When  all  the  notes  that  angels  sing 
Are  far  inferior  to  thy  name. 

These  are  but  specimens  of  many  pages  of  the  same 
import,  which  might  be  extracted  from  his  writings. 
Nor  is  he  less  explicit  in  regard  to  the  distinct  personali- 
ty and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  Dr.  Watts'  work  on  the  Trinity,  published  after  his 
Psalms  and  Hymns,  he  says  : 

Ml.  Those  very  names,  titles,  attributes,  works  and  wor- 
ship, which  are  peculiar  to  God,  and  incommunicable  to 
another,  are  ascribed  to  three,  by  God  himself,  in  his 
word ;  which  three  are  distinguished  by  the  names  of 
Father,  Son  and  Spirit. 

"  2.  There  are,  also,  some  other  circumstantial,  but  con- 
vincing evidences,  that  the  Sox  and  the  Spirit  have  the 
true  and  proper  Godhead  ascribed  to  them,  as  well  as  the 
Father. 

u  3.  Thence  it  necessarily  follows,  that  these  three,  viz. 
the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  have  such  an  inti- 
mate and  real  communion  in  that  one  Godhead,  as  is 
sufficient  to  justify  the  ascription  of  those  peculiar  and 
distinguishing  Divine  characters  to  them. 

"4.  Though  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  are  but  one 
God,  yet  there  are  such  distinct  properties,  actions,  char- 
acters and  circumstances  ascribed  to  these  three,  as  are 
usually  ascribed  to  three  distinct  persons  among  men." 

In  our  Letter  No.  XII.,  reference  was  made  to  the  an- 
cient literature  of  hymns.  A  few  further  suggestions  and 
some  quotations  from  recent  publications,  are  all  that  our 
space  permits. 

1.  Dr.  M' Master,  author  of  the  "Apology  for  the  book 
of  Psalms,"  admits  "the  existence  of  hymns  of  human 
composition  at  an  early  day^  and  their  use  in  the 
church,"  he  adds,  "is  with  us  no  matter  of  dispute" — 
"  they  were  frequently  used  in  public  worship,"  &c.  * 
•  Apology,  p.  34. 


HYMNS    OF   TIIK    EARLY    CHURCH.  199 

2.  Another  important  witness  to  tbe  same  truth,  fa  the 

eminent  Merle  D'Aubigne,  the  learned  author  of  "The 
History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Sixteenth  Century/1 
In  that  wonderful  revolution  which  shook  the  Papacy  to 
its  foundations,  Mmen  could  not  confine  themselves,"  lie 

-.  u  to  mere  translations  of  ancient  hymns.  The  souls 
i  f  Luther  and  many  of  his  cotemporaries  *  *  *  poured 
forth  their  feeling  in  religious  Bonajs.  *  *  *  Thus  the 
hymns  were  revived,  which  in  the  first  century  had 

wiled  the  pangs  of  the  martyrs. M  In  these,  he  tells 
US]  u  ]  try  and  music  blended  their  most  heavenly  fea- 
tures. *  The  distinguished  historian  traces  these 
44  hymns  of  human  composure  "  back  to  the  very  period 
of  primitive  Christianity,  "the  first  century. M 

3.  A  third  important  witness  is  the  "  North  British 
Review."  After  quoting  from  the  earliest  historian  of  the 
church, *f  who  has  preserved  "a  fragment  of  the  second 
century,"  the  hymn  beginning,  u  We  praise  thee,  we  bless 
thee,"  kc,  the  Review  adds,  "  this  hymn  is  invested 
with  a  charm,  *  *  *  for  it  was  the  song  which  martyr 
after  martyr  sang  so  cheerfully  as  they  marched  from 
prison  to  their  death  place/1  J 

The  same  authority,  after  citing  a  number  of  ancient 
hymns  by  Ephream  the  Syrian,  uses  the  following  lan- 
guage: 

"In  many  cases,  hymns  like  these  were  the  sole  con- 
I  of  gospel  truth  when  heterodoxy  grew  and 
flourished  beneath  the  Papal  influence.  They  were  too 
pure  to  be  defiled  by  Romish  contaminations,  *  *  *  they 
have  come  down  to  us  in  all  the  splendor  of  their  first 
purity.  *  *  *  We  ought  to  love  them  the  more,  because 
they  flowed  with  dear  and  living  streams  through  the 
barren  wastes  of  Popery."  || 

threefold  testimony  (Dr.  M'Master,  Merle  D'An> 

*  ITiptnry  of  Reformation,  toL  8,  p.  177. 
.1  History,  I 

I  Ibid. 


200  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

bigne  and  the  North  British  Keview)  furnishes  a  full  and 
triumphant  reply  to  the  vaunting  challenge  so  rashly  put 
forth  and  repeated,  as  follows  :  "  If  you  can  find  a  sin- 
gle instance  from  the  day  that  heard  the  melodies  of  the 
sweet  singer  of  God's  Israel,  on  down  to  the  day  that  heard 
the  horrible  blasphemies  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  of  a  single 
church  member,  who  on  one  solitary  occasion  used  in  God's 
worship  any  other  than  the  hymns  contained  in  the  book 
usually  called  the  l  Psalms  of  David/  then  I  will  give 
up  this  whole  controversy."  * 

If  any  further  authority  is  required,  we  have  it  in  the 
illustrious  Neander,  the  prince  of  modern  church  his- 
torians— "  The  Psalmody  of  the  early  church  consisted 
in  part  of  the  Psalms  of  David,  and  in  part  of  hymns 
composed  for  the  purpose."  f  Nor  does  ecclesiastical 
history  for  the  first  four  centuries  present  so  much  as  a 
fragment  of  evidence  that  any  individual  or  Council  made 
objection  to  these  hymns  until  we  come  to  the  Synod 
of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  344-346.  That  Synod  passed  an 
act  prohibiting  u  all  hymns  as  of  dangerous  tendency, 
and  restricting  their  churches  to  the  Psalter  and  other 
canonical  songs  of  the  Scriptures."  J  The  Synod,  it 
seems,  tolerated  "  the  other  songs  of  Scripture,"  which 
our  brethren  call  "  corruptions."  But  the  historian  adds 
this  significant  clause — "The  Arians  of  that  age  also 
opposed  these  ancient  hymns,  for  different  reasons."  \\ 
The  reason  is  not  given,  but  perhaps  the  present  practice 
of  the  Arians  of  Ulster  in  retaining  Rouse  may  suggest 
an  explanation. 

The  celebrated  letter  of  Pliny  to  the  Emperor  Trajan 
(A.  D.  103-4)  states  that  having  tortured  several  of  the 
Christians,  he  discovered  no  other  crime  in  their  assem- 
blies, than  that  "  they  were  accustomed  to  meet  before 

*  United  Presbyterian,  of  Cincinnati. 

f  Allgem.  Kirsch. 

J  Xeander  says  that  the  same  Synod,  in  the  15th  canon,  "ordered 
that  no  one  should  sing  at  Divine  service,  except  the  choristers." — Bib- 
lical Jicpertoi'Uf  January,  ]  832. 

||  Primitive  Church,  by  Coleman,  p.  376. 


HYMNS   OF  Tin:    EARLY   CHURCH.  201 

day,  cafmen  Christ  divert    invicem — 

Ihrist  as  God  in  alternate  resp  oses."    Ter- 

tulliau.  ■  oentury  later,  referring  to  this  letter  of  Pliny, 

— u  Every  one  was  invited  in  their  public  worship 

to  ring  unto  God,  according  to  hi*  ability }  dc  propria 

-a  -  >ng  composed   by  himself,   or  one 
from  the  Scriptures."  *     Those  who  ical 

talent,  prepared  suitable  hymns,  and  recited  them  in  the 
public  assemblies. 

The  historian  Eusebius,  also  quotes  Cains,  a  COtem- 
porary  of  Tertullian,  thus — "  Who  knows  not  *  *  *  how 
man)-  Bongs  and  odes  of  the  brethren  there  are,  written 
iningy  jam  prick  m — {  a  long  time  ago/  by 
believers,  and  offering  praise  to  Christ  as  the  word  of 
God,  ascribing  divinity  to  him."  f  Many  of  these 
hymns  were  preserved  and  appealed  to  in  subsequent 
in  the  controversies  with  the  Arians  and  other  enemies 
of  the  truth.  J  Origen,  who  flourished  A.  D.  250,  Dyo- 
nisius,  and  other  early  writers,  often  cited  these  hymns  as 
a  soil  ^  common  literature  of  the  church,  and  thus  con- 
founded the  errorisl 

The  case  of  the  arch-heretic  Paul  of  Samosata,  who 
was  deposed  for  denying  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  other 
offenses,  by  the  Council  of  Antioch,  A.  D.  269,  has 
often  employed  in  this  controversy.  The  decision  of  the 
Council,  translated  from  Eusebius  by  Milner,  so  far  as  it 
refers  to  Psalmody ,  is  as  follows:  "He  suppressed  the 
Psalms  made  in  honor  of  Jesus  (  .  I  called  them 

modern  compositions — and  he  directed  others  to  be  - 
in  the  church  in  his  own  commendatii  n."        N  ander 
•  facts  thusi — "  The  church   hymns  which  had 
cond  oentury,  he  banished  as  an 
inn-.  :  :"  on  the  principle  that  only  pottage*  out 

of  th>    J!        N  ought  to  Lc   $ung ;  and  thus  he 

.  c.  S. 

230, 


202  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

probably  suffered  nothing  but  the  Psalms  to  be  used." 
This  opposition  to  "  the  church  hymns"  by  the  heretic 
Paul,  as  well  as  his  agreement  with  the  Arians  of  the 
period  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  in  preferring  the  naked 
Psalms,  is  not  difficult  of  explanation.  Why  do  all  such 
heretics  of  the  present  day  hate  and  oppose  creeds  and 
confessions  ?  Why  do  they  denounce  them  as  profane 
additions  to  the  word  of  God,  which  they  claim  as  the 
only  and  all-sufficient  creed  ?  They  all  profess,  like? 
Arius,  when  arraigned  before  the  Council  of  Nice  (A. 
D.  325),  to  believe  the  Scriptures.  "  But  it  soon  appear- 
ed," says  Milner,  "  that  without  some  explanatory  terms 
decisively  pointing  out  what  the  Scriptures  had  revealed, 
it  was  impossible  to  guard  against  the  subtleties  of  the 
Arians."  *  They  were  ready  to  adopt  the  strongest 
terms  employed  in  the  Scriptures  to  designate  the  di- 
vinity of  Christ,  even  "God"— "the  true  God,"  &c, 
because  they  received  them  with  their  own  interpreta- 
tions. But  the  Council  at  length  drove  Arius  and  his 
party  out  of  all  their  hiding  places,  by  employing  such 
forms  of  confessing  Christ  as  even  the  arch-heretic  could 
not  receive. 

In  these  facts  we  discover  the  secret  of  the  hostility  of 
Paul  and  his  friends  to  the  "  hymns  of  the  churches," 
and  their  decided  preference  for  the  naked  text  of  Da- 
vid—  just  as  the  Jew  and  the  modern  Arian  are  quite 
willing  to  sing  the  simple  words  of  the  second  Psalm  — 
but  what  Jew  would  accept  for  worship  Dr.  Watts'  para- 
phrase of  it  ?  And  the  same  is  true  of  the  Arian.  But 
is  not  this  the  same  as  saying  that  the  inspired  Psalms 
are  adapted  to  the  propagation  of  fundamental  error? 
No  more  than  the  same  thing  is  asserted  of  the  whole 
Scriptures  by  all  who  employ  creeds  as  tests  of  sound- 
ness in  the  faith.  Painful  facts  prove  that  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  not  a  sufficient  safeguard  against  the  in- 
trusion of  heresy — and  therefore  other  tests  are  adopted. 
What  is  true  of  the  sacred  volume,  is  true  of  all  its 
•  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  1,  p.  2S0 


HYMX8   Of   Till-    EARLY   CIiriKll.  203 

parK  even  of  the  Psalms.     Paul  and  his  Arian  brethren 
kn»  w  this,  and,  therefore,  they  had  the  Bame  prefer 

ma  over  the  more  explicit  "hymns  of  the 
church,"  as  modern  heretics  express  for  "thi  Bible  as 
'iiiKiu  crxkd,"  over  the  acknowledged  Bymbols  of  sound 
•  ptant  churches.     i;  >r  Buch  n  as  >na  as  these,  the  her- 
etic Paul  of  Bamo8ata  "  banished  the  church  hyn  i 
which  expressly  and  beyond  all  controversy  ascribed  di- 
vinity to  Christ,  and  he  adopted  the  "principle  thai  only 
ught  to  he  tung,  and  probably  suf- 
I  nothing  but  Psalms  |  of  David  I  to  be  used."     Such 
i<  the  testimony  of  Neander,  the  greatest  of  modern  his- 
Q3.      Ab  to  Paul's  having  on  one  occasion  (Easter) 
required  hymns  t<>  be  >ung  in  hu  own  praise,  it  was  a 
rate  offense,  and  so  dealt  with  by  the  Council.     It  is 
n"t  intimated  that  such  was  his  common  practice,  nor 
that  he  ordinarily  enjoined  songs  in  honor  of  himself, 
in   the  room  of  the  worship  of  God.     In  view  of  such 
as  this,  we  leave  the  reader  to  decide  between 
]>r.    f    Bsly   and   Dr.   M'Master;  the  former  of  whom 
-.  thai  "the  daring  impiety  of  Paul  was  manifested 
in  his  taking  Buch  liberty  with  the  Psalms  whose  author 
i<  the   Boly  Spirit" — but  the  latter  (Dr.  M'M.)  Bays— 
ulus  refus  Lebrate  the  Deity  of  Christ  in  a 

m  hymn."  *     The  whole  history  of  ancient  hymnol- 
st ablish  the  truth  of  the  statement  of  Nean- 
.  and  he  but  expresses  the  views  of  the  translator  of 
M<  sh  im,  and  of  all  ecclesiastical  historians,  so  far  as  fa- 
miliar t«>  the  writer.     The  recent  attempt  to  give  the  sub- 
arose  out  of  the  exigencies  of  the 
mody  controversy. 

-  importance  in 
;:i  the  following  truths,  which  it  clear- 

1 .  I  aul  1'  am  1  in  common  use,  certain  "  church  hymns/' 

*  Paulu-  .■  in  ftecomn  per- 

vertir.i;  th--  '  lem 

.  honor  of  tl.  ;."' — Biblie* 


204  LETTERS    ON    PSALMODY. 

handed  down  from  the  second  century,  perhaps  of  even 
earlier  date. 

2.  These  hymns  were  very  full  and  express  in  pro- 
claiming the  Divine  nature  of  Christ,  and  in  offering 
him  Divine  worship — all  which  Paul  abhorred. 

3.  In  order  to  propagate  his  errors,  this  able  and  art- 
ful heretic  felt  it  to  be  indispensable  to  abolish  the  use 
of  these  hymns. 

4.  In  their  place  he  enjoined  the  exclusive  use  of  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  probably  of  the  Psalms ;  at  the 
same  time  denouncing  the  hymns  as  "  modern  composi- 
tions/' and  human  inventions. 

In  conclusion,  "  we  have  all  the  evidence  which  speci- 
mens of  undoubted  antiquity  can  aiford,  that  such  scrip- 
tural hymns  were  early  composed  and  used  by  Christians. " 
Such  is  the  testimony  of  the  learned  editors  of  the  "Bib- 
lical Repertory"  (for  1829),  to  which  the  reader  is  referred 
for  many  examples.  The  same  authorities  cite  several 
most  learned  commentators  to  prove  that  Ephesians  5  : 
14 — "  Awake  thou  that  sleepest,"  &c,  1  Timothy  3  :  16, 
2  Timothy  2  :  11-13,  are  quotations  from  hymns  in 
common  use  when  the  apostle  wrote.  The  passage  in 
Ephesians  5  :  14  is  expressly  given  by  the  apostle  as  a 
quotation,  without  any  reference  to  its  author  or  origin. 
Grotius  and  many  others,  regard  the  passage,  Acts  4  : 
24-30,  as  a  hymn,  and  Augustine  calls  it,  "the  first  Chris- 
tian Psalm."  It  was  probably  chanted  after  the  manner 
of  the  Jews  in  their  synagogues.  "And  Philo,  a  cotem- 
porary  of  the  Apostles,  is  reported  by  Nicephorus  to 
have  testified  that  the  primitive  Christians,  after  the  time 
of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  sang  in  their  public  worship 
not  only  the  Psalms  of  David  and  other  poems  of  Scrip- 
ture, but  also  hymns  or  odes  composed  by  themselves."* 
"  It  has  been  demonstrated,"  says  the  learned  Bingham,")" 
"  that  there  were  always  such  Psalms,  and  hymns,  and 
doxologies  composed  by  the  pious  (not  inspired)  men,  and 
used  in  the  church  from  the  first  foundation  of  it.     Nor 

*  Biblical  Repertory,  1829,  pp.  526  539. 
f  Origines  Ecclesiastical,  vol.  4,  p.  443. 


HYMNS   OF   THE    KARL?    CHUR<  il. 

did  any  but  Paul  of  Samosata  exoepl  against  the  use  of 
them,   which  he  did,  because  they  contained  ■  doctrine 

contrary  to  his  nwn  private  opinions/1      Many  of  the  ex- 

from  early  writers  to  prove  these  points,  may  be 

seen  in  the  original  languages,  in  Lord  Chancellor  King's 

4-  Enquiry  into   the   Constitution   and  Worship  of  the 

Primitive  Church/'  and  still  more  fully  in  the  great  work 
of  Bingham,  quoted  in  the  margin.     Thus  ecclesiastical 

history  unites  with  the   Holy  Scriptures  in  condemning 

the  exclusive  system  as  an  innovation  upon  apostolical  in- 
stitutions. 

In  view  of  the  mass  of  evidence  in  these  Letters,  we 
cannot  but  indulge  the  hope  that  the  needless  and  hurtful 
divisions  and  alienations  originating  in  Psalmody,  will 
soon  cease.  AVhen  that  happy  period  shall  arrive,  these 
honored  fathers  and  brethren  whom  we  are  now  con- 
strained to  withstand,  will  be  glad  to  copy  the  safe  ex- 
ample of  the  ancient  church  of  Scotland,  and  unite  with 
her  humble  representative,  the  Presbyterian  church — in 
their  New  Testament  ascriptions  of  praise  to  the  incom- 
prehensible Jehovah,  the  Glorious  Trinity  in  Unity — 
u  the  King  eternal,  immortal  and  invisible,  the  only 
wise  God."  Nor  will  it  any  longer  be  regarded  as  u  a 
corruption  of  Divine  worship,"  to  say  with  Sternhold 
and  Hopkins,  and  the  early  Scottish  church : 

To  Father.  Sonne,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
All  glory  be  th  ore  fore  ; 
A>  in  beginning  was,  is  now, 
And  shall  be  evermore : 

And  with  Dr.  Watts  at  the  close  of  his  hymns — "  I 
can n<»t  persuade  myself  to  put  a  full  period  to  these  Di- 
vine hymns,  till  I  have  addressed  a  medal  long  of  glory 
to  God  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holj  Spirit." 

Thus  did  our  Scottish  forefathers  delight  to  celebrate 
the  praises  of  the  adorable  Trinity,  which,  as  Dr.  Watts 
expre>~  3  that  peculiar  glory  of  the  Divine  nature, 

thai  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  bo  clearly  revealed  to  men, 
and  uaty  to  true  Christianity. " 

18 


APPENDIX. 

After  most  of  the  foregoing  Treatise  was  written, 
there  appeared  in  Philadelphia  a  volume  entitled  u  The 
True  Psalmody/'  which  seems  to  demand  a  brief  notice. 

On  the  16th  of  August,  1858,  as  we  are  told  in  the 
advertisement,  a  meeting  was  held  in  that  city,  which  ap- 
pointed Rev.  J.  M.  Willson,  J.  T.  Cooper  and  R.  J.  Black 
a  committee  "to  prepare  a  work  in  favor  of  the  exclusive 
use  of  the  Scripture  Psalmody/'  At  a  subsequent  meet- 
ing, this  committee  reported  such  a  treatise,  and  were 
unanimously  authorized  to  publish  it.  Hence  the  volume 
called  "True  Psalmody/'  which  professes  to  be  "largely 
a  compilation"  from  the  treatises  of  Dr.  M' Master, 
Pressly  and  others.  Of  course  most  of  its  arguments 
have  been  anticipated  in  the  foregoing  Letters.  We  add 
a  few  strictures. 

1.  The  volume  bears  marks  of  haste.  Thus,  p.  117, 
we  are  told  of  "a  touching  hymn"  with  the  title,  "Veni 
Sancta  Spiritus,"  "composed  by  King  Robert  of  France, 
and  in  which  all  his  gentle  nature  seems  to  speak." 
This  professes  to  be  a  quotation  from  a  volume  called 
"The  Voice  of  Christian  Life."  The  committee  should 
have  corrected  the  bad  grammar,  either  of  King  Robert 
or  of  the  author  of  "The  Voice."  "  Sancta  Spiritus"  is 
an  unfortunate  attempt  at  Latin. 

Again:  The  running  title  of  the  work  from  p.  71  to 
p.  183,  is  "Hymns  unwarranted."  But  here  is  a  labored 
attempt  to  prove  that  when  Paul  speaks  of  "  Psalms, 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs/'  Ephesians  5  :  19,  he  intend- 
ed by  all  these  terms,  only  "David's  Psalms."  If  this 
be  so,  then  it  follows  that  we  have  inspired  authority  to 
call  "the  Psalms"  hymns!  But  the  title  of  the  book 
repeats  more  than  a  hundred  times,  "hymns  unwarrant- 
ed"— "hymns  unwarranted/'  &c.  It  is  only  from  other 
(206) 


REVIEW   01   IRU1    PSALMODY.  207 

parts  we  learn  that   the   committee  mean   "uninspired 
hymns/1  thus  escaping  the  odium  of  having  placed  their 
ban  upon  David's  /(///tuts,  as  well  as  all  the  rest, 
•J.   m  their  "  Introduction  "  they  say —  MWe  believe 

most  firmly    *      *      *    that  this  (the  book  of  Psalms) 
dd  be  in  a  literal  translation  Bung  in  the  worship  I  f 
God."     This  is  said  while  its  authors  use   constantly 
u  \\  use's  paraphrase/1     Of  course  they  do  not  sii 
trituration  at  all,  but  a  patchwork  paraphrase  or  u]     I 
txpliccUum"  as  Ralph  ESrskine  defines  the  term.     This 
subject  is  fully  discussed  in  our  first  six  Letters,  where 
will  also  be  found  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the  commit- 
a  announcement — "we  adhere  to  the  very  matter  pro- 
vided for  us  by  Him  whose  praises  we  celebrate."    1 
are  very  extraordinary  statements,  proceeding  as  they  do 
from  a  learned  committee.     How  strange  that  they  should 
speak  of  Rouse  as  "the  very  matter  provided  by  Qod  I" 

3.  Following  in  the  track  of  their  predecessors,  they 
up  u  their  man  of  straw  "  in  various  instances,  and 

belabor  it  most  lustily  !     For  example,  they  chai 
against  whom  they  are  arguing,  with  designing  k,t  >  super- 

the  inspired  and  appointed  manual,"  and  to  "  intro- 
duce other  Psalms  or  hymns"  in  its  stead,  pp.  46,  71. 
And  their  favorite  epithets  for  those  with  whom  they  dif- 
fer are,  "the  friends  of  human  composition"  —  Madvo- 

-  of  human  Psalmody" — just  as  though  there  n 
no  human  composition  in  Rouse  !     This  volume,  however, 
U  rather  more  moderate  in  its  phraseology  than  - 
have  noticed.     Though  it  dues  not  charge  us  in  bo  many 
words,  with  "impiously  rejecting  the 

.  ;"  yet  we  are  reminded  of  the  danger  of  "of- 
fering strange  fire  Vs     The  commi        s     d  to  have  very 

placently  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  their  patch- 

;   paraphrase!  are   really  "the   songs  composed   in 
heaven/1     To  attempt  to  disturb  this   pleasant   di 
would  be  only  to  repeat  much  that  has  been  already  - 
in  our  ii  Lettei 

4.  The  materials  which  the  committee   have   thrown 


208  APPENDIX. 

together  in  this  "  compilation/'  exhibit  some  curious  ex- 
amples of  incoherence  and  discord.  Nor  is  it  easy  to 
determine,  of  two  or  more  conflicting  sentiments  set  forth 
with  equal  zeal  and  authority,  which  they  wish  us  to  re- 
ceive as  their  matured  convictions.  For  example,  in  the 
"Introduction"  they  plead  for — "The  hook  of  Psalms 
in  a  literal  translation,"  "to  the  exclusion  of  uninspired 
songs,"  page  7.  But  when  they  reach  page  217,  their 
proposition  is,  "the  Psalms  of  Scripture  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  uninspired  songs."  But  do  the  committee  really 
believe  that  "the  book  of  Psalms,"  and  "the  Psalms  of 
Scripture,"  are  identical  in  meaning  ?  Are  there  no 
Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  in  Scripture,  except 
in  the  one  book  ?  Will  they  venture  to  maintain  so  ab- 
surd a  proposition  ? 

Again  :  On  page  7  of  the  "  Introduction, "  they  plead 
for  "  the  book  of  Psalms  to  the  exclusion  of  all  unin- 
spired songs."  But  when  they  reach  page  65,  they  quote 
a  leading  author  as  follows :  "  It  would  appear  to  be  the 
Divine  will  that  this  (book  of  Psalms)  should  be  used  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  others"  This  of  course  excludes  not 
only  "uninspired  songs,"  but  "all  others"  except  the 
Psalms  of  David,  both  inspired  and  uninspired  !  Which 
side  does  the  committee  maintain,  or  wish  us  to  adopt  in 
this  conflict  of  sentiment  1  And  what  is  most  extraordi- 
nary, on  page  133,  the  committee  themselves  say — "The 
issue  before  us  is,  have  we  liberty  to  make  and  sing  *  * 
songs  other  than  those  of  the  Bible  I"  On  page  7,  it  was 
"  the  book  of  Psalms  to  the  exclusion  of  all  uninspired 
songs,"  but  when  they  arrive  at  page  133,  they  forsake 
their  first  position/  "the  book  of  Psalms,"  and  are  found 
arguing  against  "  songs  other  than  those  of  the  Bible" — 
where  of  course  they  take  under  their  protection  not  only 
"the  book  of  Psalms,"  but  "the  songs  of  the  Bible" 
generally,  as  well  as  those  of  the  book  of  Psalms  i  The 
leading  author  whom  they  quote  with  so  much  approba- 
tion, says  it  appears  to  be  "  the  Divine  will"  to  exclude 
"all  others"  but  "the  Psalms;"  but  not  so  the  commit- 


HKVIEW    OF    IBUI    PSALMODY.  209 

too  when  they  arrive  at  page  133.  They  then  Bay,  it  is 
7<< /•  than  those  of  the  Bible,"  against  which 
they  oontend  !  At  one  time,  it  is  u  the  book  of  Psalms  M 
exclusively  for  which  they  are  valiant  —  but  at  another 
'•tli  :  the  Bible, "  including,  of  course,  all  wonge 

in  the  BxbL — in  defense  of  which  they  have  unsheathed 
the  sword  of  controversy  I  And  still  more  to  confound 
this  confusion,  the  committee  tell  us  near  the  close  of 
the  book  (p.  -17),  u  We  have  kept  but  one  definite  jj/<>jj- 
orition  before  us — the  ftalnu  of  Scripture,  the  church's 
sufficient  and  appointed  manual  of  praise."  So  that  this 
oracle  of  "  True  Psalmody  "  greatly  needs  an  interpreter 
to  expound  its  responses. 

5.  This  "  True  Psalmody  M  is  largely  employed  with 
objections  to  " uninspired  hymns."  "They  have  led," 
the  committee  tell  us,  "  to  the  abandonment  of  congre- 
gational singing;"  and  "  in  domestic  worship,"  they 
strongly  intimate,  "  there  is  comparatively  little  use  of 
sacred  songs."  These  are  unquestionably  great  evils; 
and  so  far  as  they  exist  among  the  advocates  of  hymns, 
deserve  to  be  condemned.  But  have  the  committee 
traced  these  evils  to  the  true  cause,  viz.  the  use  of  hymns? 
In  a  foot  note  they  admit  a  fad  which  entirely  spoils 
their  argument.  "The  Methodist  denominations"  not 
Only  "retain  congregational  singing,"  as  the  committee 
concede — but  as  every  one  knows,  make  more  use  of  song 
in  Divine  worship  than  all  the  other  denominations  put 
ther  I  Yet  these  Bame  Methodists  do  not  sing  iWthe 
Psalms'1  at  all,  but  only  hymns  !  The  logic  of  "  The 
True  Psalmody"  is  sadly  at  fault  here.  Again,  "the 
of  hymns  endangers  the  church's  purity  :  they  have 
i  used  in  diffusing  error  and  heresy."  l>ut  has  not 
the  pulpit  been  often  used  for  the  same  purposes?  Do 
not  men  wreet  Scripture  to  their  own  destruction?  Are 
the  Scriptures  and  public  preaching  therefore  to  be  dis- 
carded as  dangerous  to  the  purity  of  the  church  '.'  Has 
not  "the  n  been  abused  to  licentious- 

IS 7      What,   then,   becomes   of  the   committee's  argu- 
13* 


210  APPENDIX. 

merit  ?  Do  not  the  Arians  of  Ulster  sing  and  explain 
"  Rouse's  paraphrase"  so  as  "  to  diffuse  error  and  here- 
sy?" Of  course  the  use  and  explanation  of  "  Rouse's 
paraphrase"  should  be  abandoned  as  endangering  the  pu- 
rity of  the  church  I 

6.  From  page  73  to  page  96,  we  have  a  labored  at- 
tempt from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Cooper,  to  prove  that  Paul's 
"Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs"  (Ephesians  5  :  19) 
must  mean  the  Psalms  of  David  exclusively.  Dr.  C.  is  no 
bad  special  pleader — but  we  merely  refer  him  to  the  de- 
cision of  Ralph  Erskine,  quoted  in  one  of  our  Letters. 
He  will  there  find  the  unbiassed  judgment  of  a  prince 
among  the  original  fathers  of  Dr.  C's.  division  of  the 
United  Presbyterian  church,  viz.  that  Ephesians  5  :  19, 
Colossians  3  :  16,  contain  "a  Divine  precept"  for  sing- 
ing such  human  paraphrases  as  Erskine'  composed  on 
tl  Solomon's  Song."  As  Ralph  Erskine  had  no  peculiar 
dogma  to  defend,  it  is  quite  probable  he  was  right,  and 
Dr.  C.  altogether  wrong. 

In  the  same  connection  it  is  argued  that  "the  sayings 
of  Mary  and  the  prophecy  of  Zacharias"  (Luke  1)  are 
no  "  precedents"  in  favor  of  New  Testament  songs — 
"  for,"  they  tell  us,  u  of  Mary  it  is  merely  stated  that 
she  'said;'  her  utterances  are  not  styled  a  song;  nor  is 
there  any  evidence  that  she  sang  them." 

Now  as  this  argument  has  been  employed  in  Pitts- 
burgh, *  as  well  as  Philadelphia,  it  is  worth  a  moment's 
attention.  "  Mary  did  not  sing — she  only  said."  But 
in  Revelation  5  :  9,  we  read — "  they  sung  a  new  song, 
saying,  Thou  art  worthy,"  &c.  Hence  it  follows,  that  the  - 
four  living  creatures,  and  the  four  and  twenty  elders,  did 
not  sing  at  all — they  only  said!  For  other  examples 
see  Revelation  4  :  10,  5:  12,  7  :  10-12.  Try  the  same 
argument  with  some  of  the  Psalms.  "David  spake  unto 
the  Lord  the  words  of  this  song."  Psalm  18.  Did  Da- 
vid say  or  sing  ?  Or  is  Psalm  18  a  song  ?  Again  :  "  1" 
said j  I  will  take  heed  to  my  ways."  Psalm  39.  Of 
*  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  44. 


REVIEW    OF    TRUE    PSALMODY.  211 

course    this   Psalm   is  not    to    be    Bang,   for   David   only 
d  M  it  !     Again  :   Psalm  56 — u  Sing  forth  the  honor 
of  his  name — make  his  praise  glorious.      Say  unto  G"d, 
how  terrible  art  thou/1     The  committee  ran  perhaps  de- 
cide whether  this  Psalm,  like  the   lsth,  is  to  be  said  or 
th  terms  are  us 
Again  :    To  aeoount   for  the   fact,  asserted   but  not 
1,  u  thai  singing  praise  has  been  dropped  bo  exten- 
v  in  connection  with  the  use  of  hymns/'  the  com- 
mittee say  u  the  id*  a  of  worship  has  a  a*  /  to  no  inconsid- 
erable extent  to  be  attached  to  the  singing  of  hymns/' 
To  prove  this  extraordinary  assertion,  they   quote  "8. 
P."  in  the  "Presbyterian/*  thus:  '-Protestants  and  Papists 
alike  sing  to  creatures/'      "  Wi  sing  to  all  sorts  of  inferior 
creatures,  especially  to  siun  But  if  this  is  sound 

argument,  we  wonder  the  committee  have  not  long  since 
H  dropped  the  use  of  the  Psalms  1"  Take  this  example 
from  Psalm  52  : 

Why  dost  thou  botft,  0  mighty  man, 
Of  mischief  and  of  ill. 
Thy  tongue  mischievous  calumnies 
DeriMth  tubtilely. 

If  any  worse  example  of  u  singing  to  creatures,  espe- 
cially to  sinner-,"  can  be  found  in  our  hymns,  we  have 
never  discovered  it.     Again,  Psalm  94  :  8 — 

V    l»ruti?h  people,  understand! 
Fools  !  when  wi<e  will  je  grow? 

For  more  of  this  dreadful  evil  of  u  singing  to  creatures 
and  to  sinners,"  see  Psalms  49,  ~>v,  62,  66,  ,;7.  2,  4, 
0,  10,  and  many  others.  If  Dr.  Cooper  and  his  brethren 
will  practice  the  doctrine  they  preach,  and  drop  all  such 
Psalms  as  these,  ire  will  begin  to  think  they  feel  the  force 
of  their  own  argument.  By  their  own  showing,  the 
Psalms  of  David  "contribute  influences  to  mislead  the 
mind>  and  corrupt  the  hearts  of  sinful  men,"  equally  in 
this  particular  with  our  hymns !  When  <»ur  Assembly 
shall  issue  an  expurgated  edition  erf  our  hymns,  Pr.  0. 
and  his   brethren   of  0OUTS6   will    be   fuund   expurgating 


212  APPENDIX* 

David  !  Our  system,  they  tell  us,  "  needs  amending  and 
purging/'  p.  155.  We  reply,  by  your  own  showing,  so 
does  David ! 

On  page  69,  adopting  the  words  of  a  leading  au- 
thor, the  committee  say — "  One  thing  is  certain,  that 
neither  our  Lord  nor  his  apostles  have  furnished  any 
Psalms  and  songs  for  the  use  of  the  church."  The  com- 
mittee surely  do  not  think  that  saying  "  it  is  certain" — 
is  the  same  as  proving  their  proposition.  But  no  man 
who  carefully  reads  the  New  Testament,  can  for  a  mo- 
ment doubt  that  there  are  many  iM  songs"  of  praise  in 
that  volume;  such  for  example,  as  those  of  Mary,  and 
Simeon,  and  Zacharias,  as  well  as  those  recorded  in  the 
Acts,  the  Epistles  and  the  Revelation.  Scores  of  pas- 
sages can  be  readily  adduced,  having  much  more  of  the 
attributes  of  sacred  "  song,"  viz.  sublime  devotion  and 
poetical  excellence,  than  many  of  the  more  prosaic  parts 
of  the  book  of  Psalms.  This  is  so  obvious,  the  wonder  is 
that  it  has  ever  been  called  in  question.  All  that  is  neces- 
sary is  to  have  some  poet,  such  as  Rouse  or  Watts,  to  par- 
aphrase these  beautiful  passages  in  verse  and  metre — and 
we  have  a  volume  of  New  Testament  "  songs."  How 
strange  that  good  men  should  venture  to  affirm  that 
"  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  have  furnished  no  songs  for 
the  church  I"  And  this  rash  assertion  includes  "  the  new 
song,"  Rev.  5  :  9-14,  recorded  by  the  apostle  John. 
It  will  not  do  to  say  "it  is  certain  this  '  new  song' 
was  not  furnished  for  the  use  of  the  church."  That  is 
Hie  very  point  to  he  proved  ;  and  which  never  was  and 
never  will  be  proved.  The  commentators  teach  a  very 
different  lesson. 

To  make  this  reasoning  still  more  obvious,  look  at  a 
few  examples.  Can  any  one  doubt  that  there  are  many 
passages  in  the  New  Testament,  at  least,  as  worthy  to  be 
called  "  songs "  and  versified  for  purposes  of  praise  as 
the  following  : 

At  evening  they  go  to  and  fro : 
They  make  great  noise  and  sound, 


Or  these : 


REVIEW    OF   TRUE    TSALMODY.  213 

Like  to  i  dog  tad  often  walk 

About  th«  city  round. 

And  lei  th. >in  wander  op  end  down 
In  eooUng  food  bo  eel ; 

An<l  K-t  them  grudge  when  they  shall  not 
Be  setiefied  with  moat. 

Wheee  holly  with  thy  treasure  hid 
Thou  till'st — they  children  havo 
In  plenty.     Of  their  goodl  the  rest, 

Ihej  t<>  their  children  leave. 

When  tiny  DM  >aw,  they  from  me  fled; 

a  so  I  am  forgot 
As  nn-n  ere  out  <if  mind  when  deed: 
I'm  like  a  broken  pot. 

Those  and  scores  of  similar  stanzas,  are  parts  of  songs 
of  "  Ditriiu  institution  " — but  the  songs  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament :  u  None  are  furnuhed !"  But,  say  the  commit- 
tee, Prof.  Alexander,  of  Princeton,  affirms  that  all  "the 
Psalms"  are  "songs,  poems  intended  to  be  sung,  and  with 
a  musical  accompaniment ;"  and  that  u  they  are  intended 
to  be  permanently  used  in  the  worship  of  God."  But  in 
what  manner  arc  they  to  be  "  permanently  used?"  What 
did  Prof.  A.  nuan  by  this  language?  "The  learned  and 
highly  esteemed  Professor  ,J  constantly  uses  our  "Psalms 
and  hymns,"  and  in  all  probability  never  sung  five  stan- 
zas of  Rouse  in  his  life  I  Yet  the  committee  venture  to 
quote  him  as  favoriDg  their  notions  of  "a  correct  and 
■■//  translation  !  M  The  "  permanent  use"  advocated 
by  Prof.  A.  does  not  help  the  cause  of  "True  Psalmo- 
dy!" And  then  as  to  "the  musical  accompaniment," 
which  the  P:  :  —  r  Baya  was  also  ''intended  n — the  com- 
mittee shrink  from  it  with  horror. 

The  committee  endeavor  t<>  make  a  little  capital  out  of 
the  fact,  that  some  hymns  in  frequent  OM  wefre  the  pro- 
ductions of  in. -II  win.  ttkYe  m  evidence  <>f  being  reip 
rated;  and  that  Tom  Moore's  hymn  beginning — u  ('"me 
wlatej  where'er  >/>  languish" — is  found  in  our 
collection.  It  can  not  be  denied  that  our  hymns  in  gen- 
ual arc  from  Christian  pens,  from  such  eminent  authors 


214  APPENDIX. 

as  Watts,  Newton,  Toplady,  Cowper,  Heber,  Montgomery, 
&c.  But  one  of  these  songs  is  the  production  of  Tom 
Moore — that  is  "  the  dead  fly  in  the  ointment. "  Let  us 
inquire  whether  nothing  can  be  said  in  palliation  of  so 
great  an  enormity. 

(1.)  Do  these  brethren  never  worship  God  by  reading 
or  otherwise  uttering  the  prayer  of  Baalam  :  "Let  me 
die  the  death  of  the  righteous,  and  let  my  last  end  be 
like  his  ?  "  Numbers  23  :  10.  Have  they  never  wor- 
shiped God  by  reading  from  the  pulpit  his  prophecies — 
"  There  shall  come  a  star  out  of  Jacob,  and  a  sceptre  shall 
rise  out  of  Israel/'  &c?  Are  these  prophecies  and  this 
prayer  the  worse,  because  their  author  was  not  a  regene- 
rate man? 

(2.)  Is  not  a  large  part  of  the  book  of  Job  the  utter- 
ance of  error  ?  Does  not  the  Lord  tell  Eliphaz  —  u  My 
wrath  is  kindled  against  thee  and  against  thy  two  friends; 
for  ye  have  not  spoken  of  me  the  thing  which  is  right?" 
Chapter  42  :  7.  But  do  not  these  brethren  worship  God 
by  reading  publicly  these  false  sentiments  ? 

(3.)  When  "the  devils/'  in  various  instances,  ac- 
knowledged Jesus  to  be  the  true  Messiah,  "  the  Holy 
One  of  God/'  he  did  not  command  them  to  be  silent — 
he  did  not  refuse  a  recognition  of  his  Divine  character 
and  mission  even  from  "devils."  Yet  our  brethren  wor- 
ship God  by  reading  from  their  pulpits  these  just  and 
true  ascriptions  of  honor  to  Christ,  though  their  authors 
were  the  devils  !  Is  not  this  almost  as  bad  as  singing  a 
hymn  of  Tom  Moore  ?  If  the  committee  feel  no 
"  compunctious  visitings  M  while  worshiping  God  in  the 
language  of  "  Balaam  the  son  of  Bosor,  who  loved  the 
wages  of  unrighteousness/'  (2  Peter  2  :  15,)  with  the  false 
sentiments  of  Job's  friends,  against  whom  God's  "wrath 
was  kindled  " — and  even  in  the  language  of  "  the  devils" 
of  the  New  Testament — then  what  becomes  of  their  ar- 
gument? Doubtless  even  wicked  men  are  sometimes 
deeply  impressed  with  Divine  things,  as  Balaam  was, 
and  are  so  under  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  to 


REVIEW    OF    TRUE    PSALMODY.  215 

utter  many  most  valuable  and  interesting  truths.  And 
if,  after  the  manner  of  Balaam,  they  possess  th< 
elevated  poetic  talents  —  ire  think  the  scriptural  exam- 
ples do  not  condemn  the  occasional  use  of  their  utterances 
in  public  worship.  Certainly  the  committee  are  not  in 
a  position  "to  cast  the  first  Btone  n  at  us  Presbyterians. 
(>.  The  "True  Psalmody"  has  much  to  Bay  against 
"uninspired  Bongs,"  "human  composition, n  kc.  A:  1 
the  committee  Bay  they  "are  certainly  at  liberty  to  pro- 
nounce  very  decidedly  Hie  Scottish  version  ("Rouse's 
paraphrase  ")  to  be  an  accurate  rendering  of  the  orig- 
inal." Not  to  repeat  what  has  already  been  said  in  our 
Letters,  take  these  specimens  from  Psalm  102  :  6 — 

Like  pelican  in  wilderness 

■  ivon  I  have  been. 
I  like  an  owl  in  desert  am 
That  nightly  there  doth  moan. 

"Will  these  brethren  inform  us  where  they  find  in 
"the  original,"  the  second  and  fourth  of  these  lines? 
And  the  same  is  true  of  hundreds  of  similar  stanzas. 
They  are  specimens  of  Rotue'i  composition.  Yet  Dr.  P. 
-  of  Rouse  as  "  the  Divine  tongs  in  this  version/* 
including,  of  course,  all  the  sentiment  and  verbiage 
which  he  has  added  to  the  inspired  text  !  The  commit- 
tee must  not  be  surprised  to  hear  from  every  intelligent 
Presbyterian,  in  reply  to  such  argument  —  " Physician, 
heal  thyself."  And  are  they  certain  Rouse  was  "  a  re- 
■ate  person  V}  If  not  —  "how  dare  they  sing  his 
effusi<  D 

7.  The  el  ring  chapter  of  "  The  True  Psalmody"  is  em- 
ployed in  lauding  "  the  version,"  i.  e.  Rouse's  poetry. 
But  in  addition  to  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Cooper  and  others 
adduced  in  our  Letters,  we  have  ro  >m  only  for  the  follow- 

Vt  the  General  Assembly  of  the  United  IV 

rian  church  at  Xenia,  in  May,  1859,8  resolution  was 

1.    "that   the   version   of    the   book   of   Psalms 

I  by  the  United  Presbyterian  church,  I  • 

ithout  any  change  that  would  affect  its  integ- 


216  APPENDIX. 

rity."  In  the  debate  on  this  resolution,  as  reported  in 
"  The  Preacher/'  the  Rev.  Mr.  Van  Eaton  said—"  He 
could  not  be  brought  to  express  any  admiration  for  its 
blemishes,  its  positive  uyliness.  *  *  *  The  version  was 
not  argued  against  —  it  ivas  simply  laughed  at.  Those 
who  had  not  been  educated  to  it  from  childhood,  could 
not  use  it  at  all.  It  had  been  said  that  other  versions, 
and  collections  of  hymns,  were  sectarian.  The  Psalms 
were  catholic,  but  the  version  teas  sectarian.  It  was  just 
as  certain  as  doom,  that  if  the  United  Presbyterian 
church  were  bound  down  to  the  old  version,  she  becomes 
exclusively  an  old  country  church,  Scotch-Irish,  and 
nothing  more.  The  Psalms  were  God's  Psalms — were 
inspired — but  the  version  was  not  inspired.  He  hoped 
the  church  would  not  clog  herself  with  this  old  and 
imperfect  version/'     Comment  is  needless. 

We  here  dismiss  "  The  True  Psalmody."  We  have 
endeavored  to  give  the  work  that  "  careful  investigation," 
that  "  devout  and  prayerful  examination,"  which  the 
committee  recommend  to  "the  candid  inquirer  after 
truth  and  duty."  p.  11.  If  the  result  has  not  been  such  as 
they  seem  to  have  anticipated,  it  is  no  fault  of  ours. 


NOTE. 

Dr.  James  Latta.— "  The  True  Psalmody,"  p.  162,  exhibits  Dr. 
L.,  whose  "Discourse  on  Psalmody"  is  out  of  print,  as  "in  the  service 
of  the  infidel/'  viz.  by  "representing  the  Psalms  of  the  Bible  as  un- 
christian in  spirit,  in  doctrine — unfit  for  devotion,  tending  to  make 
heretics,"  <fec.  Very  different  is  the  judgment  of  the  late  venerable 
and  excellent  Dr.  Miller,  Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at 
Princeton.  He  says — "Dr.  Latta,  for  talents  and  learning,  as  well 
as  piety,  held  a  high  place  among  the  clergy  of  his  day.  He  pub- 
lished a  *  Discourse  on  Psalmody/  which  '  does  honor  to  his  memory.'  n 
Memoir  of  Dr.  Rodgers,  p.  178.  Every  reader  can  decide  which  of 
these  witnesses  is  the  more  likely  to  be  true.  Dr.  Miller  certainly 
never  could  have  apologized  for  any  "  utterances  against  the  word  of 
God,"  either  by  Dr.  Latta,  or  any  other  author. 


